ilWH>^ 




mftis 
















,^5.^^ 










r 






(:>jj^.**f-.*-^-^^^%*^rM>^-)^*.* j:^.t^r» 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 




Shelf. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 






*#- 



#*» 



' ^{T^ ♦ <" ,' ^"^^^M^^ * M^ &# >#^ r«# K:^ 



» _ JiF' -* - 






H^;;*; 



^: ' '* Sii:'/4' 5^:* ' 






:/? 








"*^?^* 



■U-'- 


























GAMPBELL18M REVEALED; 



OR, 



SALVATION BY FAITH 

VERSUS 

SALVATION BY WATER. 
REV. G. W. POOL, 

OF , 

THE IOWA CONFERENCE. 



k 



^ my f 



CHICAGO: ^/ Ji^/ ^G W 

DONOHUE & HENNEBERRY, 
Printers and Binders. 
1892. 






Copyright, 1891, 

BY 

G. W. Pool. 




PREFACE. 



The ministry of the orthodox churches in general have 
deemed the doctrines and assumptions of Campbellism to be too 
absurd to need any serious refutation. The prevailing opinion 
seems to be that this system of error is so intrinsically weak 
that it will die of itself if it is totally disregarded. But under 
this treatment this church has greatly increased in numbers and 
power, until it is next to impossible to accomplish any spiritual 
work where it has secured a permanent foothold. We have been 
trusting altogether in the goodness of our cause; and, in the 
meantime, books and pamphlets advocating these errors have 
multipli.d, while scarcely anything has been written in defense 
of the truth. It was the great zeal in d'sseminating these views, 
and the iocreasing number of the publications on the one side, 
and the seeming indifference and almost dearth of literature on 
the other, that called forth these pages. 

Having felt for some time the need of an inexpensive and un- 
pretentious work exposing this doctrinal system, and not being 
able to find a book of this description, I finally determined to 
write one myself. I have not written, however, because 1 make 
any pretension to scholarship, or have any ambition for author- 
ship; but because I desired to aid in offsetting the pernicious 
influence of this system of faith. It may be needless for me to 
say that I have written for the sincere inquirer after truth of 
ordinary ability, and not for the learned. And I will not be 
surprised if some should think it presumptuous for a writer of 
such inferior qualifications to offer an additional book to the 
public. But a work of inferior claims may find readers, in con- 



PEEFACE. 

sequence of local circumstances drawing attention to it, where a 
superior work would be overlooked. And this is an opportunity 
for doing good that ought not to be lost. 

Quotations from the "Christian System" have been placed 
at the beginning of the most of the chapters, in order that the 
reader might have the privilege of examining for himself the 
teachings of Campbellism as set forth ia the language of its 
author, and that there might be no possibility of accusing me of 
misrepresentation. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I be- 
lieve that there are some of these people who have risen above 
this system, and are Criristians in spite of the doctrines tliey hold; 
for these 1 have the utmost respect, but I have no respect, what- 
ever, for the doctrines themselves. 

Other books have been freely consulted in the preparation of 
these pages. All of those from which I have received aid can not 
be mentioned here, except in this general way, but I am especially 
indebted to the learned author of "Errors of Campbellism." 

The writer hopes that the effort he has made to reveal this 
doctrinal scheme in its true light may not be labor spent in vain, 
but that this little volume, which is now sent forth on its mission, 
may be the means of establishing many more firmly in the truth; 
and that it may, at least, lead some earnest seekers after the way 
of life to embrace the evangelical doctrine of salvation by faith. 

G. W. P. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER. PAQB. 

I. THE ORIGIN OF CAMPBELLISM, . - . 7 

II. THE CREED OF CAMPBELLISM, - - - - 14 

III. THE DOCTRINES OF CAMPBELLISM, - - 24 

IV. BAPTISMAL REMISSION-NOT COMMANDED, - 33 
V. BAPTISMAL REMISSION-NOT SCRIPTURAL, - 47 

VL BAPTISMAL REGENERATION-ITS IMPOSSIBILITY, 66 

VII. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION-ITS ABSURDITY, - 84 

VIIL IS IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM? - - 99 

IX. IS IMMERSION SCRIPTURE BAPTISM ? - - 118 

X. THE SPIRIT OR THE WORD-WHICH ? - - - 139 

XI. HISTORICAL FAITH, 157 

XII. SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY, - - - - 168 



CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE ORIGIN OF CAMPBELLISM. 

" Tired of new creeds and new parties in religion, and of the 
numerous abortive efforts to reform the reformation ; convinced 
from the Holy Scriptures, from observation and experience, that 
the union of the disciples of Christ is essential to the conversion 
of the world and that the correction and improvement of no 
creed, or partisan establishment in Christendom, could ever 
become the basis of such a union, communion, and co-operation 
as would restore peace to a church militant against itself, or 
triumph to the common salvation, a few individuals, about the 
commencement of the present century, began to reflect upon the 
ways and msaas to restore primitive Christianity," 

Christian System, page 5. 

Before entering fully into the discussion of the 
doctrines held by this pseudo Christian Church, it 
will be well, in order that the reader may have a 
better understanding of the subject, to give a brief 
sketch of its rise and progress as a distinctive doc- 
trinal system. 

Its origin was on this wise : Thomas Campbell, a 
minister of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, 
emigrated to America in the year 1807 ; and shortly 
after his arrival here, he identilied himself with the 

7 



O CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

Secession branch of the Presbyterian Church, in 
Western Pennsylvania. He had not, however, 
preached but a short time in this denomination until 
charges were preferred against him for the violation 
of the usages of the church, in regard to the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's Supper. He was tried, found 
guilty, and condemned ; but he appealed his case to 
the Synod, and was released from condemnation, 
on account of irregularities in the proceedings. But 
at the same time a committee was appointed to 
investigate the charges, and it brought in a report 
censuring him for his disregard of the usages of the 
Church, which caused him to withdraw from the 
Seceders. 

It seems that he now conceived the idea of restor- 
ing primitive Christianity by destroying all the 
creeds, and uniting all denominations on a scriptural 
bond of union. And in 1809, he and a few others of 
similar views met and organized the Christian Asso- 
ciation of Washington. The purpose of this organi- 
zation, according to its " Declaration and Address," 
was to perfect the project of uniting all sects upon 
the proposition that they should have, "either in 
express terms or in approved precedent, a ' thus saith 
the Lord,' for every article of faith and item of relig- 
ious practice." In the fall of this year, Thomas 
Campbell was joined in this country by his eldest 
son, Alexander, who, by his decided character, his 



THE ORIGIN OF CAMPBELLISM. 9 

liberal education, and his ability as a polemic theo- 
logian, was destined, more especially, to be the 
founder of this new system of faith. He at once 
espoused the peculiar views of his father, and in 
1810 began to preach, it seems without the proper 
authority ; for, about this time, Thomas Campbell 
made application to unite with the Pittsburgh Synod 
of the Presbyterian Church, and was refused admis- 
sion, because, among other reasons, Alexander 
Campbell had been permitted to exercise his gifts of 
public speaking without ordination. 

This failure to gain admittance into the Eegular 
Presbyterian Church led to the organization of the 
Christian Association of Brush Kun, in Washington 
county, Pennsylvania. At the first session of this 
Association, Alexander Campbell was licensed to 
preach, and was ordained by his father. Soon after 
its organization, a member of the Brush Run Church 
asked the question : '' Is infant baptism scriptural? " 
The question was discussed by the father and son, 
and not being able to find a "thus saith the Lord" 
for the practice, it was discarded. And while they 
were investigating this subject, they were led to con- 
sider carefully the grounds for baptism by affusion, 
and they became convinced that immersion alone 
was the scriptural mode of baptism. And on the 
twelfth day of June, 1812, Alexander Campbell, his 



10 CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

father, and their adherents were immersed by Elder 
Luce of the Baptist Church. 

In the latter part of the following year, the Brush 
Kun organization formed a union with the Ked-Stone 
Association of the Baptist Church. But they were 
never in perfect accord with the Baptists — these dif- 
ferences, Alexander Campbell insisted upon — and, 
in 1823, he was compelled to withdraw from them 
to escape expulsion for heresy. ISTear the close of 
this year, in a public debate with Mr. Calla, accord- 
ing to his own statement, he preached, for the first 
time, that water baptism was a necessary condition 
to the pardon of sins. It was eleven years from his 
immersion to the time he arrived at the point where 
he taught, that the design of baptism was for the 
remission of sins. In the spring of this same year, 
he had begun the pubhcation of the Christian Bap- 
tist, which finally gave place to the Millennial Har- 
hinger. In these papers, he developed his doctrinal 
scheme of salvation by water. He so gradually 
changed his views, and so greatly were the people 
infatuated with him, that they accepted this doctrine 
as gospel truth as soon as he proclaimed it. 

Campbellism now enters the field of controversy 
with a baptismal shiboleth by which it decapitates 
the members of all other churches without reocard, 
either to their doctrines, or to their Christian integ- 
rity. Mr. Campbell had great ability as a public 



THE ORIGIN OF CAMPBELLISM. 11 

debater, and gloried in theological discussions as a 
means of disseminating his doctrines. And at first 
he was very successful, owing to the fact that his 
opponents were not acquainted with his doctrines, 
or his method of defending them, while he had 
access to their theological works, therefore was able 
to meet and offset their arguments. They sought to 
overthrow his doctrine of baptismal remission by 
showing that justification was by faith, while he 
destroyed the force of their arguments by sophistry, 
and, at the same time, declared baptism to be the 
only necessary condition to salvation. His followers 
always believed that he was victorious ; and so great 
was their zeal in spreading the doctrinal views of 
their leader that the growth of this new sect was 
phenomenal. ]^o sooner had a person embraced this 
faith and emerged from the water, than he was ready 
to dispute on the subject of religion with the first 
man he met. And as they claimed to take the Bible 
as their only creed, they drew largely from those 
Churches which held kindred doctrines. Its doc- 
trines being regarded by evangelical Christians as 
too absurd to need refutation, it was left to flourish 
without opposition ; and it has increased in numbers 
and influence until it has become a large, strong and 
vigorous system of religious formalism. 

This system of faith is justly called Campbellism, 
and its advocates are appropriately designated as 



12 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

Campbellites. But they regard it as a grave insult 
to their dignity, and a reproach upon their character 
to be thus distinguished. They profess to be guided 
by the Bible alone, and will neither acknowledge 
any man as their founder, nor consent to be known 
by any name except " The Christian Church." They 
hold that all the Churches that have a distinctive 
denominational name are followers of men, while 
they alone are the followers of Christ. By making the 
exclusive claim that they are " The Christians," and 
charging all those who have had the modesty to 
take a distinctive name with being the followers of 
men, they unchristianize the members of all other 
Churches. It is nonsense to assert that we can in no 
sense be followers of the opinions of men, and at 
the same time be followers of Christ. If other 
denominations received the opinions of men as sub- 
stitutes for, or in opposition to, the Word of God, 
they might have some grounds for opposing the use 
of distinctive appellations,but this they do not do. The 
opinions of men are received, not because they are 
contrary to the Bible, but because they are believed 
to be the true interpretations of its teachings. 

The name " Christian Church " is no more a 
divinely appointed name than any other appellation 
that is used to distinguish the followers of Christ. 
It is true that the " disciples were called Christians 
first at Antioch," and that the word Church fre- 



THE ORIGIN OF CAMPBELLISM. 13 

quently occurs in the New Testament, but never do 
they appear together. A man is still a citizen of the 
United States, though he may be known by the 
name of the State in which he resides. Because he 
is a Virginian or a Missourian, it does not make him 
a foreigner. The name Christian belongs to the 
universal Church of Christ, and because a person 
belongs to one of the many branches of the Chris- 
tian Church, and is called by the name of Baptist, 
Methodist, or Presbyterian, he does not forfeit his 
Christian character. Chrysostrom, while preaching 
to the Antiochians, once told them, with a stroke of 
his Greek wit, that though they had invented the 
Christian name, they left others to practice the 
Christian virtues. And it is equally true with these 
people, though they contend for the Christian name, 
they let those who distinguish themselves by a dis- 
tinctive denominational n^me practice the Christian 
virtues. In taking the name " Christian Church," 
and refusing to be otherwise designated, they show 
an arrogance which, it is doubtful, if it ever has been 
excelled. And from thus designating, them, and 
thereby unchristianizing all those, who by their 
Christ-like lives, have so much better right to the 
title: " I pray thee have me excused." 



14 CAMPBELLISM EETEALED. 



CHAPTEK II. 

THE CREED OF CAMPBELLISM. 

"Every party in Christendom, without respect to any of its 
tenets, opinions or practices, is a heresy, a schism — unless there be 
suchapartyasstandsexactly upon the Apostles' ground. Then, in 
that case, it is a sect just in the sense of the old sect of the Naza- 
renes, afterward called Christians, and all others are guilty 
before the Lord, and must be condemned for their opposition to 
Christ's own part^* ; whose party we are, provided we hold fast 
all, and only all, the apostolic traditions, and build upon the 
Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible." 

Christian System, p. 104. 

The advocates of Campbellism violently oppose 
all printed creeds as being pernicious in their influ- 
ence and productive only of sectarian divisions. 
Hence no opportunity is permitted to pass to 
denounce their sinfulness, and the enthralling char- 
acter of all disciplinary requirements. This doubtless 
is the result of a misapprehension of the true nature 
and design of creeds. When they associate with 
creeds what does not properly belong to them, and 
assign to them a purpose which they are not 
intended to serve, it is not surprising that these per- 
sons have developed such an unjust prejudice against 
them. 

In order that we may have a proper understanding 
of this subject, it will be well for us to first inquire 






THE CREED OF CAMPBELLISM. 15 

What is a creed ? The word is derived from credo, 
I believe. It is declarative and not imperative. I 
believe, and not thou shalt believe. Every man has 
a right to think for himself and to form his own 
belief, and under proper circumstances he has the 
right to express his belief. And every man that has 
a belief, no matter what it is, has a creed. And the 
belief, or creed, of any individual may become the 
belief or creed of any number of individuals; 
therefore men of similar belief, of the same creed, 
in science, politics, and religion, unite in order to 
accomplish the same end. And they welcome to 
their society, party, or sect, men of similar views, 
who will co-operate harmoniously with them in their 
work ; but men of conflicting views, who would 
create discord and hinder their work, they wisel\^ 
exclude. A Church creed is a declaration of the 
belief of the members of a particular Church, or an 
association of Churches, with regard to the funda- 
mental doctrines of Christianity. 

The question is, has a Church the right to formu- 
late a creed, setting forth ^its views of these doctrines, 
in a general, or more minute form? Jn answer to 
this question we will ask another, has any individual 
the right, in the exercise of his private judgment, to 
form and express his belief in regard to the teach- 
ings of the Word of God? It must be conceded that 
every man has a right to do this. But if one man has 



16 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

this right, two men, a score of men, an}" number of men 
either individually or unitedly, have the same right. 
Because men unite in Church fellowship for mutual 
assistance and co-operation in religious work, they 
do not thereby lose their individual right to think 
for themselves, and to declare their belief in regard 
to the teachings of the Scriptures. If each member 
of the Church possesses this right, and their views 
harmonize, the declaration of belief, or creed of one, 
is the declaration of belief, or creed of all ; for the 
right that inheres in each one separately, inheres in 
all unitedly. The truth of this is too obvious to be 
denied. Therefore there can be no question as to 
the right of a Church to declare its belief in the form 
of a written creed. And if a single individual, who, 
in the exercise of his right of private judgment, forms 
his belief of the doctrines taught in the Bible, is not 
"guilty before the Lord." then no guilt attaches to 
a number of individuals associated together as a 
Church, who, in the exercise of this same right, form 
and express their belief of these doctrines. 

Every Church has a creed, either written or un- 
written, and the church founded by Alexander Camp- 
bell is no exception to this general rule. Though it 
is not expressed in articles of religion, or definite 
formulas of doctrine, yet it is a creed as really com- 
manding the assent of every one seeking admission 
into this church as any creed in existence. While 



THE CREED OF CAMPBELLISM. 17 

they earnestly protest against creeds and sectarian- 
ism, it is doubtful that if among all other denomina- 
tions there can be found a Church with a more 
exclusive creed than this so-called Christian Church. 
It is surprising how these people have ever deceived 
themselves into the belief that their system of doc- 
trines is anything more than any other creed of 
human origin. In the first place, they have an 
oral creed consisting of only three articles, yet it is 
so exceedingly narrow that it excludes a large ma- 
jority of the most holy and devout Christians in the 
world from the Church. And, as unreasonable as it 
may seem, there is not in the whole Bible a " thus 
saith the Lord " for a single article of it. The first 
article, to which those seeking fellowship with this 
church must subscribe verbally, is the confession, 
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 
The second article of this faith is the belief that im- 
mersion alone is baptism. And the third article of 
their creed is the belief that baptism is a necessary 
condition to the remission of sins. The only pas- 
sage of Scripture that gives any grounds for requiring 
the confession that Christ was the Son of God is the 
reply of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts viii., 37 ; but 
it is regarded as spurious by the ablest critics, and 
is not found in the Kevised Version. A person may 
accept the first and last article of this creed, but if 
he holds that affusion is baptism, it is impossible for 



18 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

him to gain admission into their Church, He might 
accept the first two, but unless he subscribed to the 
last one also, he would not be received. They will 
not receive a person on his letter from another 
Church, except perhaps from the Baptist Church 
they will sometimes recognize a letter, but it is done 
in order to proselyte. For they rejoice more over the 
aquisition of a member from another church than 
over that of ninety-and-nine sinners that need repen- 
tance. 

But this is not all their creed, with them, like 
other denominations, a large part of their belief is 
set forth in the general consensus of their doctrinal 
writers. The founder of this system of faith pre- 
sents the doctrinal views and polity of his Church in 
the work entitled ''The Christian System." And 
this book is as complete a doctrinal and disciplinary 
guide for the people of this faith as the discipline or 
confession of faith of any other church. It is true 
that their societies have never formally adopted it 
as their book of discipline, because, according to the 
teachings of their founder, every particular society 
is independent of all others. Hence it is always 
possible for them to deny that they have any 
authoritive discipline such as other Churches have. 
But notwithstanding this fact, there is not a society 
among them which does not receive the doctrines 
just as they are taught in this book, and is not gov- 



THE CEEED OF CAMPBELLISM. 19 

erned by the disciplinary rules laid down by their 
great leader in it from page 85-90. 

Mr. Campbell completely stamped his peculiar 
doctrinal views, their mode of inculcation, and even 
their method of defense, upon his followers. And 
while other Churches may change their creeds by 
their legislative bodies, this Church can never change 
its creed, for the founder of the S3'stem has 
been its sole legislator. And as its doctrines and 
polity were evolved from the 'New Testament by 
him, they must be held sacred by them for all 
time. 

The advocates of this system claim that creeds 
have been the cause of all the schisms in the Church, 
and have given rise to the many different sects that 
are now found in the Christian world. Hence they 
hold that a union between these various sects can 
never be consummated, except by destroying all 
their creeds, and taking the Bible alone as their 
creed. But are creeds the cause of the divisions and 
strife in the Church ? There are many different 
creeds in existence, but what was it that led to their 
adoption ? If there ever was a time when the views 
of the church were in perfect oneness, when all of 
its members held the same belief in regard to the 
teaching of the Scriptures, it is certain that such a 
unit}^ of sentiment could not give birth to different 
creeds; for as long as a unity of faith continued only 



20 CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

one creed was possible. It was by the exercise of 
the right of private judgment, that members of the 
church came to have divergent views of the doc- 
trines of Christianity. They must necessarily have 
held these views before they expressed them, or any 
one else either accepted or rejected them; therefore, 
creeds were only made possible by the previous 
existence of dissordant views in the church. To 
assume that creeds have caused men to differ iu 
their belief, and brought about all the schism.s in 
th^ church is to suppose that an effect has produced 
its cause. These conflicting views were first con- 
ceived, then expressed, and finally became the creed 
of those who accepted them. And if these teachers 
could accomplish their designs and annihilate every 
creed in Christendom, it would not bring about 
permanent christian union, unless at the same time 
they took away men's power to think and act for 
themselves. History would simply repeat itself, 
men would form different opinions of what the 
Bible teaches, those of similar views would unite and 
formulate a creed, and it would not be long until 
there would be as many denominations as there 
are at the present. 

But creeds instead of producing discord and 
schism are essential to secure peace and harmony 
within the Church ; for without them there would 
be friction, conflict, and disruption. The word sect 



THE CREED OF CAMPBELLISM. 21 

is not a name of ignominy ; it means nothing more 
than a number of individuals associated in the belief 
of some common doctrines. And no matter how 
heretical the doctrines which it holds may be, they 
are all claimed to be based upon the teaching of 
God's Word. There is not a denomination in the 
land that could not honestly say : " The Bible is 
our creed ; its precepts our guide ; and its doctrines 
our theology." Hence it becomes necessary, in 
order that the world may know what doctrines a 
Church holds, for it to make a declaration of its 
belief in the form of a creed. If there are no doc- 
trines in Christianity that can be formulated into 
articles of religion, no fundamental principles, no 
confessed beliefs, it is equivalent to the admission 
that there is no Christian faith. And as antagonis- 
tic elements can not be made to unite and harmonize, 
therefore it becomes the duty of Christian men asso- 
ciated together as a Church to exclude from their 
fellowship men of discordant views, whose presence 
among them would produce division and strife. 
And in doing this they neither invade any man's 
rights, nor bind his conscience. No denomination 
demands of a man that he shall accept her faith. 
He can either accept it or reject it as he pleases. 
But a Church has a right to say to every one seeking 
her fellowship ; " This is what we believe, and if 
your views are in accord with ours we will gladly 



22 OAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

receive you, but if they are not we cannot receive 
you." Tills does not involve ttie person's salvation, 
or even his membership in some other Church of 
similar views with himself. It leaves every man free 
to think and act for himself, while at the same time 
it preserves the peace and harmony of the Church. 

The assumed rejection of all human creeds by the 
advocates of this system greatly aids them to im- 
press their doctrinal ideas upon the people as the 
very essence of the gospel. Perhaps they honestly 
believe that they, in their system, are entirely free 
from all human leadership, and that the Bible alone 
is their creed. But who are the interpreters of 
God's Word ? They of course claim this privilege 
for themselves, and pass sentence of condemnation 
on all that can not understand the Scriptures as they 
do. Therefore their doctrines must be infallible 
deductions from the Word of God, or else their 
claim to take the Bible as their sole guide is ground- 
less; and they only take their interpretation of 
it for their creed, which is just what all other 
denominations do, and nothing more. 

It is truly amazing with what assurance these 
teachers will present their doctrinal scheme as the 
one of divine institution, and offer it as the onl}'' basis 
upon which the Christian world can unite. They 
deliberately chose the rite of baptism, about which 
there has been more controversy and honest 



THE CREED OF CAMPBELLISM. 23 

division of opinion in the Church than any other 
question ; and declare that it is by one mode — immer- 
sion — for one purpose — the remission of sin. Then 
they invite the people to leave or avoid the sects, 
stop all their disputing, and come forward and 
accept the final settlement of this vexed question by 
joining the Christian Church. In other words, they 
say to all other Christians, " Give up your creeds 
and accept our faith, and we will receive you 
into our fellowship, and then we will have union." 
It is doubtful if there can be found among all other 
denominations a Church that shows so much arro- 
gance in its claims, is so exclusive in its creed, and 
that has such profound confidence in its theories as 
the one that professes to build ''upon the Bible, the 
whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible." It is im- 
plicit in credulity, and insolent in assertion. It 
regards the very existence of other denominations 
as a crime, and calls upon the people to rally 
around the standard of absolute freedom from 
creeds, while it has a creed itself that is so narrow 
that it will exclude nine-tenths of the Christian 
world from the Church. It claims to be free from 
sectarianism, but it is full of coarse intolerance. It 
is an inquisition with such tortures as the spirit of 
the times still renders possible, 



24 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE DOCTKINES OF CAMPBELLISM, 

"The Christian party is built on the foundation of the Apostles 
and Prophets, and on Jesus the Messiah, himself the chief corner 
stone, and therefore on the Christian Scriptures alone. Now all 
other parties that are in any way diverse from the Christian party 
are built upon some alloy-some creed, formula, or human insti- 
tution supplementary to the apostolic laws and customs. This 
alloy is what makes the party. So many items of the Apostles, 
doctrine and so many notions of Calvin combined produce the 
combine called Calvinism. So many items of Luther's opinions, 
compounded with the Apostles' teaching, make Lutheranism. 
and so many portions of Wesley's speculations compounded ; 
with certain portions of the New Testament, make the compound 
called Methodism." 

Christian System, pp. 101-2. 

Carapbellism and Komanism are twin sisters. 
These systems have one common aim, namel}^ to 
procure salvation at the least possible cost. They 
differ greatly in non-essentials, but their fundamental 
doctrines are identically the same. Peter was the 
first Pope of the Church of Kome, and he is also 
claimed to be the great head of the Campbellite 
Church. To him, according to this system, were 
delivered the keys of the kingdom, and by him were 
the doors opened and its constitution laid down. 
Mr. Campbell says : *' With Peter we began our proof 
of this position, and with Peter we shall end our proof 
of it. He first proclaimed reformation for the remis- 
sion of sins ; and in his last and farewell letters to the 
Christian communities he reminds them of that puri- 



THE DOCTEIXES OF CAMPBELLISM. 25 

fication from sin, received in and through immer- 
sion." * They both assume that they are commanded 
to go and remit sins, and quote the same texts to 
prove their position. And they both claim to remit 
sins by water baptism, the only difference is that the 
one continues to exercise this function after bap- 
tism, while the other does not go beyond this rite. 

Kome teaches that baptism is a necessary condi- 
tion to salvation, that sins are pardoned by the act 
performed, and that the consequents of baptism ai'e 
pardon, regeneration, adoption, and a character 
that can never be effaced from the soul. And these 
are the great central doctrines of Campbellism. 
The Catholic Church holds that her interpretations 
of the sacred Scriptures are infallible, and, at least by 
implication, the Carapbellite Church makes the same 
claim for her deductions from the JS'ew Testa- 
ment. While they profess to proclaim the " ancient 
gospel*' and make great assumptions to be the lead- 
ers in a movement to emancipate dogma-manacled 
Christendom from the thraldom of creeds, these 
pseudo reformers have in reality gone back to the 
exploded theories of Romanism and the darkness of 
the Middle Ages. 

The following articles of religion are based upon 
the teachings and practical workings of this system 
of faith, and are compiled chiefly from the writings 

♦Christian System, p, 219. 



Zb CAMPBELLISM EEYEALED. 

of Alexander Campbell. And it is our candid opin- 
ion that all the speculations of Mr. Campbell, com- 
bined with a very small portion of the teachings of 
the gospel, make the compound called Campbellism. 

I. GOD. 

God appears in the threefold attitude of Creator, 
Lawgiver, and Redeemer. , He reveals his excellen- 
cies as Creator, in his wisdom, power, and goodness; 
as Lawgiver in his justice, truth, and holiness ; as Re- 
deemer, in his mercy, condescension, and love. In 
each and all of which departments he is infinite, im- 
mutable, and eternal. The Divine ISTature while it is 
essentially and necessarily singular, it is plural in its 
personal manifestations. Hence we have the Father, 
Son and Spirit equally divine though personally 
distinct from each other. 

II. THE SON OF GOD. 

The phrase, ''Son of God," denotes a temporal 
relation, but the phrase " Word of God " denotes 
an eternal unoriginated relation. There was a 
Word of God from all eternity, but the Son of God 
began to be in the days of Augustus Caesar. The 
Word incarnate is the person called our Lord and Re- 
deemer, Jesus Christ; and while in the system of grace 
the Father is the one God, in all the supremacy of 
his glory, Jesus is the one Lord, in all the divine ful- 
ness of sovereign, supreme, and universal authority. 



THE DOCTKINES OF CAMPBELLISM. 27 

III. THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 

We can not separate the Spirit and Word of God, 
and ascribe so much power to the one and so much 
to the other, for whatever the Word does the Spirit 
does, and whatever the Spirit does the Word does. 
We neither believe nor teach abstract Word nor ab- 
stract Spirit, but Word and Spirit, Spirit and Word. 
All the influence of the Spirit now felt in convic- 
tion and consolation in the world, is by the Word, 
written, read, and heard. 

IV. THE WORD OF GOD. 

The Bible is a full and perfect revelation of 
God and His will. The Old Testament has been 
superseded by the l^ew Testament, and it is now 
of no more importance than any other historical 
work. But as a means of our salvation we place the 
gospel of Christ as next in order, as it is in import- 
ance, to his sacrifice. The l^ew Testament is to us 
now in the stead of the personal presence of the 
Lord and his Apostles. It contains facts to be 
believed, commandments to be obeyed, and promises 
to be received. And it has three divisions, the 
Gospels, or books of convictions, the Acts of the 
Apostles, or book of conversions, and the Epistles, 
or books of guidance and consolation to the Church. 
V. THE SIN OF MAN'S NATURE. 

There is a sin of nature as well as personal trans- 
gression, for our nature was corrupted by the fall of 



28 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

Adam before it was transmitted to us. The effects 
of the fall, however, were not such as to render man 
powerless to do good, on the contrary he can of his 
own strength turn from evil and perform good works, 
pleasant and acceptable unto God, by which he ob- 
tains the remission of his sias. 

VI. FAITH. 

1^0 testimony, no faith ; for faith is the belief of 
testimony. Where testimony begins, faith begins; 
and where testimony ends, faith ends. The quality, 
or nature of faith, is found in the quality or value 
of the testimony. If the testimony be valid and au- 
thoritative, oui" faith is strong and operative. There 
is no other manner of believing a fact than as 
receiving it as true. If it is not received as true it is 
not believed, and when it is believed it is no more 
than regarded as true. The efficacy of faith is always 
in the fact believed, and not in the nature of the 
faith. 

VII. REPENTANCE. 

Repentance is one of the natural effects of faith, 
and not its cause. In the current acceptation of the 
term, it means sorrow for sin, but not godly sorrow ; 
for this is not to be expected from unconverted and 
ungodly persons. Christians, when they err, may 
repent with a godly sorrow, but it is impossible for 
the unregenerate to do so. Genuine repentance in the 
alien sinner is nothing more nor less than the refor- 
mation of the life. 



THE DOCTRINES OF CAMPBELLISM. 29 

VIII. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. 

The true Christian Church is composed of all of 
those that have publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ 
to be the Son of God, and have been immersed for 
the remission of their sins,and associate under the con- 
stitution which the Messiah himself has granted and 
authorized in the Kew Testament, and are walking 
in his ordinances and commandments — and of none 
else. 

IX. BAPTISM. 

There are three things to be considered in baptism. 
The action commanded to be done, the subject speci- 
fied, and the purpose of the action. The action 
commanded to be done is immersion, and not sprink- 
ling or pouring. The proper subjects of this ordi- 
nance are penitent believers. And the design of 
baptism is to introduce the subjects of it into the 
participation of the blessings of the death and resur- 
rection of Christ. 

X. THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

We maintain that the ordinances of the gospel 
should be observe(^ as they were in the days of the 
apostles. Hence we observe this institution by 
breaking the one loaf on every Lord's day, to which, 
it is our practice, neither to invite nor debar. We say 
it is the Lord's Supper for all the Lord's children. 

XI. THE REMISSION OF SIN. 
The conversion of the sinner is a progressive work. 



30 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

It is not accomplished by one single act, but by a 
succession of acts, in their proper order, and each 
having its proper position and design. These acts 
are hearing the Word, believing the Word,repentance, 
confession and immersion. We place immersion last 
not because we regard it as most important, but be- 
cause God's law places it there. We regard it as the 
last condition, the crowning act of man's restoration 
to God's favor, which he performs for himself. 
Immersion is for the remission of sins, not for the 
remission of original sin, or sins yet to be committed, 
but for the remission of sins that are passed. 
XII. THE NEW BIRTH. 

When the new birth is spoken of, then the water 
is introduced, for the Spirit calls nothing personal 
regeneration except the act of immersion. Persons 
are begotten by the Spirit, impregnated by the Word, 
and born of the water. Rec^reneration is tauo^ht to 
be equivalent to being born again, and is the same 
import with the new birth. If immersion is equiv- 
alent to regeneration, and regeneration is of the 
same import with being born again, then being born 
again and immersion are the same thing ; for the 
plain reason, that things that are equal to the same 
thing are equal to one another. 

XIII. THE CONSEQUENTS OF IMMERSION. 

We are enlightened, quickened, regenerated, justi- 
fied, adopted, sanctified and saved by the truth 



.THE DOCTEINES OF CAMPBELLISM. 31 

believed and obeyed, or by faith and immersion. 
Hence as consequents of our immersion we are born 
into the divine family, enrolled in heaven, justified 
or pardoned, and separated or sanctified to God. 

XIV. THE ALIEN SINNER. 

Every unimmersed person is an alien to the King- 
dom of Heaven. The Scripture nowhere commands 
him to pray, and it is agreivous sin for him to do so; 
for Christ is not the advocate of the alien. It is only 
through immersion that he can be brought into the 
Kingdom, have access to the blood of Christ, and 
enjoy the blessings of salvation. 

XV. THE CITIZEN OF THE KINGDOM. 

All immersed believers are free and full citizens of 
the Kingdom of Heaven, according to its constitu- 
tion, and are entitled to of all its social privileges and 
honor. Though they may fall away and become 
vile and sinful, yet by virtue of their immersion they 
are still in the Kingdom, and may at an}^ time obtain 
the forgiveness of their sins by repentance and prayer. 



32 CAMPBELLISM KEVEALED. 



CHAPTER lY. 

BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT COMMANDED, 

"He commanded faith, repentance and bapi ism to be preached 
in his name for the remission of sins to every nation under 
heaven. . . Under the government of the Lord Jesus there is 
an institution for the forgiveness of sins, like -which there was 
no institution since the world began. . . * By the command- 
ment of the everlasting God the gospel is mode known to all 
nationsfovthe obedience of faith.' 'A great company of the priests 
became obedient to the faith.' ' But they have not all obeyed the 
gospel;' and 'What shall be the end of them ^ho obey not tJie 
gospel? ' From these sayings it is unquestionably plain that either 
the gospel itself, taken as a whole, is a command, or that in it 
there is a command through the obedience of which salvation is 
enjoyed." 

Christian System, pp. 72, 180, 192. 

The conditions of salvation under ttie old covenant 
may all be summed up into this one brief sentence. 
Do and live. But the requisites of salvation under 
the new covenant are just the reverse of this, and 
may be stated thus, Live first, then do. It is now 
no longer necessary to observe either the positive 
institutions of the Mosaic law or any similar form or 
ceremony based on them, in order to obtain the for- 
giveness of sins. The sinner must first seek the par- 
don of his sins, and, when he has obtained forgive- 
ness he is then under obligation to submit to the 
ordinances of the Church and to discharge the prac- 
tical duties of the Christian life. It is remarkably 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION— NOT COMMANDED. 33 

straao-e that, notwithstandino^ the fact that those 
who lived under the ]a\Y were not able to meet its 
requirements, and in the face of the unmistakable 
teachings of the New Testament, any one would 
devise a system of faith in which the rite of bap- 
tism was made a necessary condition to salvation. 
Nevertheless, Campbell and his followers have pro- 
claimed to the world that the remission of sins can 
not be obtained except by the observance of this so- 
called positive institution. The only difference there 
is between the doctrine of forgiveness, as taught by 
the Levitical law and by Campbellisra, is that under 
the one there were many commandments and man}^ 
ceremonies, while under the other there is but one 
commandment and one positive institution. This 
system is appropriately called the " ancient gospel," 
for it dates back 1,500 years before Christ. 

The assumption that the Lord Jesus ever gave 
water baptism as a command, or ever instituted it in 
his Church as an ordinance, by obedience to which 
the sinner can procure the pardon of his sins, is not 
supported by a single "thus saith the Lord," and is 
manifestly contrary to the whole tenor of the Scrip- 
tures. Christ never commanded any individual to be 
baptized, either for the remission of sins or other- 
wise. He never referred to baptism as having any 
such a signification. He never in person administered 
baptism with water ; never rebuked any one fQv hav- 



34 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

ing neglected to receive this rite ; never represented 
the refusal to submit to this ordinance as involving 
the soul in any danger ; never authorized anybody 
else to threaten condemnation on the neglector or 
rejector of water baptism. But while he was on 
earth people had their sins forgiven without water 
baptism by the express command, and by the very 
mouth of the Saviour himself. This was never done, 
however, without the exercise of faith on the part of 
the persons whose sins he pardoned. " When he saw 
their faith," he said to the paralytic : " Man, thy 
sins are forgiven." And to the sinful woman, he 
said : " Thy sins are forgiven. . . Thy faith hath 
saved thee." The claim that there is no promise given 
to the sinner without water baptism is entirely with- 
out divine authority. Christ promised no special bless- 
ing to persons who should receive this rite. He used 
no language that might leave the impression that bap- 
tism had, or ever would have ought to do as a condi- 
tion of forg-iveness. He nowhere tauo^ht or ever 
hinted even, that baptism was or ever would be for 
the remission of sins. 

The main text that is relied upon to prove that 
Christ gave baptism as a command, by obedience to 
which sins are remitted, is found in the commission 
to the apostles as recorded in Mark xvi, 16-17: '' Go 
ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION — NOT COMMANDED. 35 

saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
The doctrine of Carapbellism is he that is not im- 
mersed shall be damned ; but there is nothing of this 
kind taught in this text. If we were to admit that 
this passage has reference to water baptism, it would 
not prove that it is for the remission of sins. It 
declares that damnation is the result of unbelief. 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; 
but he that believeth not " — not he that is not bap- 
tized — " shall be damned." If on the one hand, the 
proposition is true, that " he that believeth not shall 
be damned," on the other hand, it must be equally 
true that he that believeth shall not be damned. 
And therefore the teaching of the text is in perfect 
harmony with the language of Christ when he says : 
" He that believeth on him is not condemned ; but he 
that believeth not is condemned already." The ques- 
tion then, assumes this form, Can men believe before 
they are baptized ? ]S'ow, if the}^ can exercise faith 
prior to baptism, which is most certainly true, then 
they can escape damnation ; that is, be saved without 
being baptized. 

This passage of Scripture, however, has no refer- 
ence to water baptism, for the language in the orig- 
inal precludes any such interpretation. 

" Ho pisteusas kai baptistheis sothesetai.''^ Here 
the word pisteusas, believeth, is the first aorist parti- 
ciple of the active voice, and the baptistheis baptized, 



36 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

is the first aorist participle of the passive voice. 
Now, whenever the first aorist participle active is 
followed by the first aorist participle passive the 
latter is always the immediate resultant of the for- 
mer ; and if the first aorist participle active expresses 
an internal act, the first aorist participle passive 
denotes the internal result of that act. In the pres- 
ent case, the faith is an internal act, therefore the 
baptism must be the internal result of the faith, 
independent of any external act. All the difficulty 
in the interpretation of this text has arisen from the 
attempt to make it mean water baptism. If it be 
read with the understanding that the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit is meant, the diificulties all disappear. 

But if this passage taught all that the disciples 
of Campbell claim for it, it would still be an unsafe 
text upon which to found a doctrine. For the sec- 
tion of Mark in which it appears is regarded as an 
interpolation. It is neither found in the oldest 
manuscripts, nor recognized as genuine by the 
Church Fathers. And besides this it contains at least 
seventeen words that are used nowhere else in this 
book. The evidence is very strong that it has been 
added by some later hand. 

Christian baptism was not instituted by the great 
commission any more than the preaching of the 
gospel. Christ instituted his baptism, not at the close, 
but at the beginning of his personal ministry. His 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT COMMANDED. 37 

disciples began to administer this rite from the very 
time they entered the apostolic office. For we read : 
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into 
the land of Judsea; and there he tarried with them, 
and baptized." (J no. iii, 22.) Again we read : 
"When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees 
had heard that Jesus baptized more disciples than 
John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his 
disciples,) He left Judage, and departed again into 
Galilee." (Jno. iv, 1-3.) It is evident, from these 
passages, that the apostles practiced this rite under 
the personal supervision of the Lord himself, contem- 
porary with the baptism of John ; and not for the 
first time on the day of Pentecost. They were sent 
forth at first to proclaim the gospel to their own 
people, and to baptize those that accepted Jesus as 
the promised Messiah. But by the final commission, 
given to them by the Saviour, just before his ascension, 
their field of labor was extended until it embraced 
all nations. They were to preach the same gospel 
they had been preaching, and to baptize with the 
same baptism they had been administering. He 
never taught them that baptism was for the remis- 
sion of sins ; therefore he did not command them to 
teach this doctrine. 

To reason that because Christ commissioned his 
disciples to go and proclaim the glad tidings of sal- 
vation to all nations, and baptize their converts in 



38 OAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

the name of the Holy Trinity, therefore he com- 
manded baptism to be preached for the remission of 
sins, is an unsound conclusion. The language of the 
commission does not warrant the teaching of any 
such a doctrine. Indeed, it does not authorize the 
preaching baptism at all. This is certainly the case 
unless it can be proven that Paul received a different 
commission from the other apostles. For he does 
not recognize the fact that he was sent to baptize, 
but declares that it is of far greater importance to 
preach the gospel. He puts in striking antithesis 
the preaching of the gospel and baptizing, saying, 
''I thank God that I baptized none of you, but 
Crispus and Gains . . . And I baptized also the house- 
hold of Stephanus : besides, I know not whether I 
baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to bap- 
tize but to preach the gospel." (I Cor. i, 14, 16, 17.) 
This language is unintelligible if the great apostle 
of the Gentiles had himself been baptized for the 
forgiveness of his tiins, and all that had been con- 
verted under his preaching had been saved in the 
same manner. If this doctrine of Campbellism is 
true, the most important part had been left out of 
his commission. It is remarkable, if water baptism 
was essential to salvation, that he was not sent to 
preach that doctrine. If this theory be true he could 
not have been properly qualified for his great life 
work as missionary to the Gentiles. He was the 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT COMMANDED. 39 

first gospel preacher to thousands, and was more 
abundant in labors than all the other apostles ; but, 
according to this theory, he only converted a few 
persons. He either had no cause to boast of his 
achievements above the other apostles, or else the 
doctrine of baptismal remission was no part of the 
" ancient gospel." 

It shows to what extremity Mr. Campbell is put 
to sustain his position when he argues that because 
the words obey, obedient, and obedience are used in 
the gospel that it, as a whole, is a command, or there 
is in it somewhere a command by the observance of 
which a person may receive the pardon of his sins. 
There is no ''thus saith the Lord" for any such pre- 
cept, and those who teach that the Saviour ever gave 
baptism as a commandment by obedience to which 
sins can be remitted, are " teaching for doctrines the 
commandments of men." 

Why is it then that in the absence of any direct 
command from Christ for any one to be baptized, 
that this rite is retained in the Church? If there 
were no more grounds for water baptism than is 
found in the commission of the apostles, it could not 
be maintained, for it might be understood to mean 
spiritual baptism. We know, however, that they 
did baptize those they received into the Church with 
water, therefore they undoubtedly understood the 
Saviour to mean water baptism. And those who 



40 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

are sent to preach the gospel now cannot fulfil their 
commission unless those who accept Christ will sub- 
mit to this rite ; hence it becomes the duty of the 
people to observe this institution. It is not a moral 
duty to observe it, but simply a positive duty. 
'•Moral duties arise out of the nature of the case it- 
self prior to external command. Positive duties do 
not arise out of the nature of the case, but from ex- 
ternal command; nor would they be duties at all 
were it not for such command received from Him 
whose creatures and subjects we are." ^' The apostles 
and their successors have received a command to 
administer this rite to all their converts, and because 
of this external command to them — not because there 
is any direct command to the individual himself — it 
becomes the positive duty of every follower of Christ 
to be baptized. 

Water baptism is a divinely instituted rite, and 
bears the same relation to the visible Church that the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit does to the invisible 
Church. It is the door of entrance into the Church 
by which the privileges of membership and the im- 
munities of the Church are procured. The privileges 
it bestows are all external, and, though essential to 
church membership, it is not necessary in order to 
obtain the forgiveness of sins. It is the outward 
sign of the inward work that has taken place in 

♦Butler's Analogy, p. 206. 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT COMMANDED. 41 

spiritual baptism. The Church was given thisr odi- 
nance as a mark of distinction to separate her mem- 
bers from the world, and for this reason ft is neces- 
sary in order to exhibit our faith to others. 

Baptism is nothing more than one of the accidents 
of the Christian religion. It became a symbol 
because something had been brought into existence 
to be symbolized. It can not cleanse the soul from 
sin, but, when this has been done by spiritual baptism, 
the outward sign of this work of grace naturally fol- 
lows. It is simply the external badge of disciple- 
ship in the Church. There is a close resemblance 
between this rite in the Church and the badge of a 
secret society. The badge was adopted by the order 
because it fitly represents the principles that brought 
it into existence, or the purpose for which the society 
was organized ; and, when worn by its members, it 
is the outward sign that they have espoused these 
principles, and are in possession of all it signifies. 
How foolish it would be for an uninitiated person 
to pin on the badge of one of these secret societies, 
and imagine that it made him a member and 
bestowed upon him the rights and privileges of the 
order. But it is no less absurd for a person to put 
on baptism, the badge of Christianity, and imagine 
that it makes him a Christian. Unless he has first 
been washed from his sins by the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit, the whole thing is a farce. If he does 



42 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

not possess the thing signified, the sign is an empty 
form, a mere mockery. 

The followers of Campbell teach that John the 
Baptist prepared the way for the coming Messiah 
by establishing water baptism as the positive institu- 
tion for the forgiveness of sias. They are so deficient 
in wisdom that they fail to see that this over- 
throws the theory upon which their whole system is 
founded. But Mr. Campbell, himself, was wise 
enough to see that this was in conflict with his 
theory, that the kingdom of heaven was not set up 
until Pentecost; therefore he interprets everything 
as figurative that is said of entering the kingdom 
previous to this day. There is no evidence that the 
Baptist ever instituted water baptism, or that he 
taught that it was for the remission of sins. '' John 
did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism 
of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark i, 4.) 
John himself says: " I indeed baptize you with water 
unto repentance." (Matt, iii, 11.) These teachers 
represent him as preaching throughout the land the 
baptism of water for the remission of sins. But the 
Scriptures do not justify them in teaching anything 
of the kind. It is declared that he preached the 
baptism of repentance which was for the forgiveness 
of sins, or baptizes the soul from sin. There is no 
passage that directly connects his baptism with the 
pardon of sins. It is plainh^ stated that it was eisy 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT COMMANDED. 43 

for, to, in order to, the repentance, which was eis, to, 
in order to, for, the remission of sins. The baptism 
was for the repentance, and the repentance was for 
the forgiveness of sins. And this was not without 
faith, for Paul says : '' John verily baptized with 
the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people 
that they should believe on him which should come 
after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." (Acts xix, 4.) 
The assumption that, under the dispensation of 
John, water baptism was instituted for the remis- 
sion of sin is wholly gratuitous, and can not be suc- 
cessfully maintained. 

If water baptism is a condition of remission of 
sins, then it is either a repeatable affair, or else it is 
an act by which the sinner's calling and election is 
forever made sure. Man is prone to wander from 
God, and it is not an uncommon thing for the Chris- 
tian to commit sin. But how do they obtain forgive- 
ness for these sins committed after conversion ? Just 
as they did those before conversion, for the Scriptures 
reveal only one way by which sins can be remitted. 
E'owhere in all the Word of God are sinners divided 
into two classes, kliens and citizens, and two sepa- 
rate and distinct ways provided by which the mem- 
bers of each class can obtain pardon. The sinner is 
a sinner in the sight of God, no matter whether he 
is in the Church or out of it. " When a righteous 
man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit 



44 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

iniquity ... he shall die in his sin, and his right- 
eousness which he hath done shall not be remem- 
bered." (Ezek. iii, 20.) E"ow, if baptism is a righteous 
act, then, when a man falls into sin his baptism is 
no longer remembered ; therefore, he is no better off 
than the one who has never submitted to this rite. 
And if he desires to have his sins forgiven again, he 
must of necessity be rebaptized. And if he would 
avoid the possibility of eternal death, he must be 
baptized whenever he falls into sin. These teach- 
ers will not re baptize, and, therefore, according 
to their own theory, it is impossible to have sins for- 
given that are committed after baptism. It is certain 
that baptism is not a repeatable affair, and it is not 
impossible for sins to be remitted which are com- 
mitted after baptism ; hence it can not be a nec- 
essary condition to the remission of sins. This one 
fact that this doctrine makes baptism a repeatable 
affair is sufficient of itself to overthrow this system 
of faith. 

In order to avoid this difficulty, the advocates of 
Campbellism teach that there are two distinct ways 
by which sins are forgiven. The alien sinner must 
be immersed for the remission of his sins, but the 
naturalized citizen can have his sins pardoned 
through repentance and the prayer of faith. And 
this involves them in the further absurdity of teach- 
ing that Christ is not the advocate of the alien sin- 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT COMMANDED. 45 

ner, and that it is a sin for him to pray before he is 
immersed. The writer has heard some of them try 
to prove their position by representing Egypt as the 
world, the crossing of tlie Red Sea as immersion, 
the journey in the wilderness as the Church, and 
Canaan as heaven. Then they reason that because 
the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness by Moses 
that the Israelites who had been bitten by the 
fiery serpents might be healed; therefore Christ was 
lifted up in the Church, in order that those of 
her members that are beguiled into sin, by the 
old serpent, might be forgiven their sins. This 
is so absurd that it only needs to be stated to 
refute it. The Saviour was lifted upon the cross 
that "whosoever believeth in him might not perish, 
but have eternal life." They seek to avoid the force 
of all such passages as the following : " If any man 
sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus 
Christ, the righteous," by saying that they are 
found in the epistles. And these, they claim, have 
not a single word that has reference to the alien. 
The " we " in this text, it is affirmed, limits it to the 
Church. And by this same method of reasoning we 
can prove that the apostles were in the habit of 
using profane language, for James, when speaking 
of the tongue, says : " Therewith curse we men." 
In both these passages the apostles are speaking for 
mankind. J^othing but the demands of a false doc- 



46 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

trine could have ever led to such arbitrary interpre- 
tations of the Scriptures, and to so many absurdi- 
ties. This doctrine is manifestly contrary to reason, 
but its advocates seem determined to maintain it, 
whatever violence of interpretation or misrepre- 
sentation of the Word of God may be required. 




BAPTISMAL REMISSION — NOT SCEIPTUKAL. 47 



CHAPTER Y. 

BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT SCRIPTURAL. 

"Peter, on Pentecost, exhorted the Jews to save themselves 
from that untoward geoeratioo, by reforming and being im- 
mersed for the recaission of their sins, in the name of the Lord 
Jesus. Immersion alone was the act of turning to God. Hence, 
in the commission to convert the nations, the only institution 
mentioned after proclaiming the gospel was the immersion of 
the believers, as the divinely-authorized way of carrying out 
and completing the work. And from the day of Pentecost to 
the final Amen in the revelation of Jesus Christ, no person was 
said to be converted, or to turn to God, until he was buried in 
and raised up out of the water." 

Christian System, pp. 185,209. 

The advocates of Camp bell ism, in setting forth 
their peculiar doctrinal views, claim to find a " thus 
saith the Lord " for every tenet of their creed. 
And it is not surprising that they are able to do this, 
when we consider the manner in which they inter- 
pret the Word of God. With them it always means 
just what it literally says it means. The Bible is 
the only legitimate source of ultimate appeal in all 
controverted subjects of religion, but it will not 
always do to apply to its language this arbi- 
trary rule of interpretation. A slavish literalism is 
the bane of reason, and often stands as a bar to the 
comprehension of the meaning of the Scriptures. 
The real question, in the study of passages that con- 
tain misleading terms or phraseology, is not so much 



48 CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

what is said as what is meant. Take, for example, 
expressions like the following: '' Judah is a lion's 
whelp." " Let the dead bury their dead," and " The 
seven candlesticks which thou sawestare the seven 
churches." Passages like these are common, and 
the reader of an}^ degree of intelligence will readily 
preceive that they are not to be understood in their 
literal sense. And this is equally true of not a few 
of the texts, that are relied upon by these teachers 
to support their doctrines. 

The language on which they chiefly base the 
doctrine of baptismal remission is Acts li, 3-8 : "Re- 
pent and be baptized every one of you, in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." This is the 
only passage in the whole Bible that seems to teach 
clearly that baptism is for the remission of sins. 
There are a number of other texts that are adduced 
to prove this theory, but it is only by implication 
that they render it any support. If this doctrine is 
true there should be more than one text in which it 
is plainly set forth. The book of divine revelation 
is not an aggregation of independent atoms, but 
a coherent whole. It may be accepted or rejected, 
but you can not pick and choose, and take as much 
or as little as you like. You may take here and 
there an isolated passage and prove by the Script- 
ures that the most heretical doctrine is true. In- 



BA^PTISMAL remission NOT SCRIPTUEAL. 49 

spired men wrote whole books, and preached entire 
sermons without once referring to water baptism. 
It is reasonable to suppose that if baptism were to 
have been the condition of forgiveness under the 
gospel dispensation, that some of the prophets would 
have foreseen this fact. In all of their references to 
the great spiritual awakening to follow the incarna- 
tion of the Son of God, faith, and not baptism, is 
revealed as the condition of remission. There is 
scarcely a chapter in the New Testament where 
faith is not connected with remission of sins, while 
baptism is never mentioned as having any such a 
design, except in this one instance. Great stress, 
however, is placed upon the circumstances under 
which these words were spoken. According to the 
advocates of baptismal remission, the keys of the 
kingdom were delivered to Peter, and, he, acting 
under the express mandate of the king, opened on 
Pentecost, for the first time, the door through 
which mankind must enter or be forever excluLled 
from the kingdom. They claim that he, on this 
day, laid down the law of induction into the king- 
dom for all subsequent ages, by declaring the saving 
efficacy of water baptism. As this text, according 
to their theory, stands at the threshold of the gospel 
dispensation, and is a part of the " constitution of 
the kingdom ; " therefore they contend it is entitled 
to more than ordinary signification. 



50 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

A critical examination of this language will show 
that it gives no support to this doctrine. The word 
christos in this passage, which is anglicized , not 
translated, Christ, means anointed. Its use was orig- 
inally derived from the ceremony of anointing the 
priests and kings, when they were inducted into the 
functions of their offices. And finally the word 
came to be used by the prophets to designate the 
promised Messiah, under the appellation of God's 
Anointed. It was always used by the Jews as an 
appellative and never as a proper name. In the orig- 
inal language the article is almost always employed 
in connection with this word ; but the translators 
have so seldom rendered the article with it, that the 
v^ord is commonl}^ understood to be a proper or 
surname of the Saviour, instead of an appellative 
or name of office. It is true that after many years, 
by the frequent association of this term with only 
one individual, that it began to be used as a part of 
the name of the Lord. T his was hastened by the 
fact that this name had never been used as such, 
while the name Jesus was common among the Jews. 
The word at the beginning was as much of an appel- 
lative as the word Baptist used in connection with the 
name John. And the one was as regularly accom- 
panied by the article as the other. After a careful 
personal examination of Luke's writings it has been 
found that the article accompanies christos in every 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT SCRIPTITRAL. 51 

instance except three. And there must have been 
some good reason for leaving it out in these passages. 
And the word in these texts, where the article does not 
accompany it, should be translated with its ordinary 
meaning instead of being transcribed, as it is where 
the article is joined to it. The failure to do this 
obscures the true meaning of the Scriptures, and an 
erroneous doctrine is somtimes the result of such a 
mistranslation. The passage under consideration is 
a case in point. T lie article does not accompany 
christos, and therefore it should have been translated 
with its common signification. By ignoring the 
fact that the article was not used here, and angliciz- 
ing the word, instead of translating it, has led to the 
teaching of the erroneous doctrine of baptismal re- 
mission. The purpose of Peter was to impress upon 
the minds of the people that s^'.ivation was to be 
obtained in the name of Jesus, whom God had 
anointed for the remission of sins. It does not mat- 
ter what meaning this word acquired afterwards, it 
could not in this text mean more than anointed. 
It is not at all probable that at this early date the 
apostles distinguished Jesus by the name of Christ. 
They had only recognized the fact that he was 
the Messiah a short time, and if Peter had intended 
to speak of his Messiahship, he undoubtedly would 
have used the article with this word. 
The fact that an elliptical form of speech was 



52 CAMPBELLISM EEYEALED. 

common among the Jews, throws further light on 
this text. They were familiar with the teachings 
of the Scriptures, and it was not necessary to speak 
of that which they would naturally supply them- 
selves. There is an ellipsis in this passage that must 
be supplied before those not accustomed to this 
mode of speaking can fully understand its meaning. 
In the phrase " in the name of Jesus " the preposi- 
tion ej)i, on, upon, is used, and not eis, in, into. And 
epi to onomQti here does not mean the same as 
eis to onoma in the commission. The one means 
upon the name, that is, upon faith in the name, 
while the other can not mean more than by the 
authority of, or at most into a profession of the 
name. "Whenever ejn is used in connection with the 
name of Jesus, faith is either expressed or under- 
stood as the condition of the blessings bestowed. 
There is an exact parallel of this phrase in Peter's 
account of the conversion of Cornelius and his 
family: " For as much then as God gave them the 
like gift as he did unto us, who believed on {epi) 
the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts xi, 17.) If this 
text is properly translated, and the ellipsis supplied 
it will read: "Kepent and be baptized every one of 
you, believing on the name of Jesus, anointed for the 
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost." And instead of the doctrine of bap- 
tismal remission being taught by Peter on this occa- 



BAPTISMAL KEMTSSION NOT SCEIPTUB-AL. 53 

sioD, his language is in perfect harmony with the 
whole tenor of the Scriptures. 

But aside from the proper rendering of this text, 
the theory of remission of sins by water baptism, 
is easily overthrown by the simplest rule of inter- 
pretation, that obscure texts are to be interpreted 
by plain ones. The discourse of Peter was based 
upon his quotation from Joel, in which the prophet 
foretells the great outpouring of the Holy Spirit 
under the gospel dispensation. The condition of 
salvation foreseen by the prophet is given in the 
tw^enty-first verse of this chapter: "And it shall 
come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the 
name of the Lord shall be saved." The efficacy of 
prayer is placed above that of water. And it is not 
likely that after he had told the people that this was 
the time to which this prophecy referred, when sal- 
vation should be obtained by calling upon the Lord, 
he would immediately contradict the prophet by 
telling them that baptism was the condition of pro- 
curing this blessing. The apostle approved the 
requirement of remission given by Joel, audit is not 
reasonable to suppose that in the next breath he 
would teach that, baptism was the condition, and not 
faith exercised through prayer. 

The sermon of this apostle to the multitude that 
came together after he had healed the lame man, 
contains no reference to baptism. He exhorts 



54 » CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

the people after this manner: "Repent ye, 
therefore, and be converted that your sins 
may be blotted out, when the times of refresh- 
ing shall coQie from the presence of the 
Lord." (Acts iii, 19.) When he was brought before 
the Sanhedrento answer for preaching this sermon, 
he mentions repentance and remission of sins, 
but says nothing about baptism. And the reason 
there is no allusion to baptism is that it has nothing 
whatever to do with the forgiveness of sins. It is 
not possible that he would make it a condition of 
forgiveness in his first sermon, and in the second 
preach a different doctrine. Mr. Campbell attempts 
to destroy the force of this passage by saying that 
immersion and conversion are convertible terms, 
meaning one and the same thing. But this can not 
be the case if his position is true, that immersion is 
always a passive act. The word ejnstrepsate^ be con- 
verted, is in the active voice, and literally means 
turn again; therefore it can not be equival^t of the 
passive, be immersed. Thousands entered into the 
enjoyment of forgiveness of sins at this time upon 
the exercise of faith without hearing water men 
tioned. For we read: " How be it many which- 
heard the word believed and the number of the men 
was about five thousand." (Acts iv, 4.) 

The falsity of this doctrine is positively proven 
from the case of Simon the sorcerer. He believed 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT SCRIPTtJKAL. 55 

and was baptized, 3^ethe still remained in the "gaul 
of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." And as 
soon as Peter saw that Simon was still in his sins, 
he exhorts him to repent of his wicliedness and 
pray to God for forgiveness. l^ow, if baptism 
was for the remission of sins, why did he not re-bap- 
tize him? The Sorcerer requested the apostle to 
pray for him, but according to this system he should 
have asked him to baptize him again. To reply that 
he was a naturalized citizen is simply begging the 
question, and is only an attempt to avoid the diffi- 
culty in which the theory of a positive institution 
for the remission of sins involves them. 

The most difficult passage for these teachers to 
harmonize with their system is the account of the 
conversion of Cornelius and his household. The 
man, to whom the keys of the kingdom had been 
given, was sent to open the door, that the Gentiles 
might also enter into the kingdom and enjoy its 
blessings and privileges. These people have not 
been familiar with the Scriptures from their infancy 
as the Jews had been, and it will be necessary for 
the apostle to be more explicit in his statements 
than when speaking to his own people. And hence 
he gives the condition of salvation in such plain 
language that even an ignorant Gentile can not 
misunderstand his meaning. He says: "To him 
give all the prophets witness, that through his name 



66 CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission 
of sins. " (Acts x, 43. ) 

Immediatel}^ upon the utterance of these word;? 
they all believed, and received the pardon of their 
sins through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Prior 
to this time not a word had been said of water bap- 
tism. And how it could be a condition of remission 
and not be administered until after these persons' 
sins had been forgiven, is more than any one can 
satisfactorily explain. There is not a text in the 
whole Bible that says, '' Through his name whoso- 
ever" is baptized ''shall receive remission of sins.'^ 
Faith was announced as the condition of forgiveness, 
while baptism w^as not referred to until after they 
were saved from their sins. At the conference held 
in Jerusalem to consider some questions with regard 
to the Gentile converts, the testimony of this apostle 
shows conclusively that these persons were saved by 
faith : " Peter rose up and said unto them, men and 
brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God 
made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my 
mouth should hear the word of the gospel and 
believe; and God, which knoweth the hearts, bear 
them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost even as 
he did unto us ; and put no difference between us 
and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 
XV, 7-9.) He seems to have expected that there 
would be something required of them, such as cir- 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT SCEIPTUKAL. 



57 



cumcision, before they could enjoy the blessings of 
the gospel, but they were not compelled to comply 
with the forms and ceremonies of the law. The 
Jewish converts received the pardon of their sins 
through the exercise of faith, and God put no differ- 
ence between them and the Gentiles, purifying their 
hearts also by faith. This proves beyond a doubt 
that the condition of forgiveness was not baptism, 
but faith in Jesus Christ. 

The language of I Pet., iii, 21, is cited to prove 
this doctrine: "The like figure whereunto baptism 
doth now save us (not the putting away the filth of 
the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God) by the resurrection of Christ." This passage 
is one of the most difficult of interpretation, and for 
this reason it can be more readily used to support 
the doctrine of baptismal remission. Peter affirms 
that it does not put away the filth of the flesh — that 
is, the sins — but answers a good conscience. It does 
not procure the good conscience, but answers a con- 
science that has already been made good in some 
way by the resurrection of Christ. Baptism is not 
the antitype of the flood, but of the ark. If water 
is made to represent the medium of salvation, the 
antediluvians must have been saved, and not Noah 
and his family. The water was the medium of 
destruction, and the ark of salvation. The antedi- 
luvians were immersed for their destruction and not 



58 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

for salvation. And these eight persons were saved 
by faith in the promises of God, which led them to 
enter the ark. And if the people desire salvation 
now, they must in like manner keep out of the 
water and enter the ark, that is, Christ, through the 
exercise of faith. 

The favorite apostle of Campbellism does not 
teach the doctrine of baptismal remission at all. In 
numerous places he sets forth faith as the condition 
of forgiveness, but never baptism. If he had 
designed to teach this doctrine on Pentecost he 
surely would have mentioned it as a condition of 
salvation in some of his other sermons, or, at least, 
in his writine:s to the Church. As he does nothino^ 
of the kind, we are forced to conclude that he had 
no such doctrine in mind when he delivered his first 
discourse. 

Next to Peter, the apostle Paul is relied upon to 
establish the doctrine of baptismal remission. The 
passage in which he quotes the language of Ananias 
at his conversion is presented as positive proof that 
he was baptized in order to wash away his sins. 
" Why tarriest thou ? arise and be baptized and wash 
away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." 
(Acts xxii, 16.) The word, baptisai, which is trans- 
lated be baptized, is in the middle voice, and the force 
of this voice should have been retained in the trans- 
lation. If we o^ive this word the reflective force of 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT SCEIPTUKAL. 59 

the middle voice, the text will read, " Why tamest 
thou ? arise and baptize thyself, and wash away thy 
sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." This is 
the only time that this word is used in the middle 
voice in the gospel, and there is undoubtedly a reason 
for its use in this instance. It is certain that it pre- 
cludes the idea of immersion to obtain the remission 
of sins, for no one can immerse himself. But he 
could baptize himself with the Holy Spirit by calling 
upon the Lord through faith. Mr. Campbell himself 
gives us the rule for interpreting this text. He says : 
"Jesus said, 'Convert the nations, immersing them 
into the name,' &c., ' and teach them to observe,' &c- 
The construction of the sentence fairly indicates that 
no person can be a disciple, according to the commis- 
sion w^ho has not been immersed : for the active par- 
ticiple in connection withanimperative either declares 
the manner in which the imperative shall be obeyed 
or explains the meaning of the command. To this I 
have found no exception, for example : — ' Cleanse the 
house, sweeping it. ' ' Cleanse the garment, washing 
it.' " * In the present case we have the active 
participle " calling '.' in connection with the impera- 
tive " be baptized;" therefore this can not be an excep- 
tion to this general rule, or it would have been found by 
the author of this system, for it is one of the princi- 
pal texts of Campbellism. Therefore, Paul was bap- 

* Christian System, J) . 198, 



60 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

tized and had his sins washed away by calling upon 
the Lord. A review of the circumstances of the case 
makes this obvious. Ananias was sent to him that 
he might receive his sight and be filled with the Holy 
Ghost. He came to him and spoke these words, 
then laid his hands upon his head, and his sins were 
forgiven, he was baptized with the Holy Spirit, and 
the scales fell from his eyes all in the same moment. 
Now, all this took place before he was baptized with 
water. And how water baptism could have an3^thing 
to do with his conversion is more than any one can 
tell. 

Campbell shows what an adept he is at sophistry 
in the adroit manner in which he attempts to har- 
monize the message of Paul to the Philippian jailer, 
with that of Peter to the Pentecostians. He asks: 
"How is this, Paul, do you preach another gospel to 
the Gentiles than Peter preached to the Jews? . . . 
Paul replies, ' Strike, but hear me. Had I been in 
Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. I would have 
spoken as Peter did. Peter spoke to believing and 
penitent Jews; I spoke to an ignorant Roman jailer. 
I arrested his attention after the earthquake by simply 
announcing that there was salvation to him and his 
family through belief in Christ,' But why did you 
not mention repentance, baptism, the Holy Spirit V 
' Who told you I did not ? ' Luke says nothing about 
it ; and I concluded you said nothing about them. 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION — NOT SCRIPTUEAL. 61 

Luke was a faithful historian was he not ? 'Yes, very 
faithful ; and why did you not faithfully hearken to 
his account? Does he not immediately subjoin that 
as soon as I got the jailer's ear, I spoke the word of 
the Lord to hira, and all that were in his house ? ' . . . 
I spoke the whole gospel . . , Iment'onedrepeDtance, 
baptism, remission, the Holy Spirit, the resurrection, 
judgment, and eternal life.' "'^" What Campbell says 
of the faith and penitence of the Jews, and the ignor- 
ance of the jailer is true ; hence it was not necessary 
for Peter to state definitely the condition of pardon, 
while it was necessary for Paul to mention faith in 
the most direct and impressive manner. But it is the 
sheerest nonsense to intimate that it was necessary 
to attract the jailer's attention. He had been brought 
face to face with death, and saw his lost and ruined 
condition. And his greatest desire was to obtain 
salvation; therefore he rushes to these men, w^ho 
teach the way of life, and cries : " Sirs, what must I 
do to be saved ? " There was no necessity to attract 
his attention, for never was there a sinner that had 
a deeper realization of his need of divine aid, or that 
w^as more aroused to a sense of his lost condition than 
this man. And the apostles did not w^ait until they 
got him off into some secluded corner of the prison 
to explain to him the plan of salvation. He had al- 
ready repented, and they told him at once : "Believe 

* ChrUttian System, p. 249. 



62 CAMPBELLISM EEYEALED. 

on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved/' 
And if he obeyed them he was saved before there 
was any mention made of baptism. If Baptism was 
for the remission of sins they should have told him 
to be baptized and he should be saved. The reason 
they did not was because it had nothing to do as a 
condition of salvation. 

'No one believing the doctrine of baptismal remis- 
sion would have ever made such an answer as this. 
And if the founder of this system had labored as 
hard to reconcile Peter with Paul as he has Paul 
with Peter, he would have discovered the true con- 
dition of salvation was faith, and not water baptism. 

When Paul came to Ephesus, he found twelve 
persons, who are called disciples, though they had 
not been baptized with Christian baptism. In re- 
ceiving John's baptism, according to this system, 
they had believed and been baptized for the remission 
of their sins. And the Apostle baptized them again, 
hence if John's baptism and Christian baptism were 
both designed for the remission of sins, these persons 
were baptized twice for the same purpose. But this 
second baptism was administered without any evi- 
dence that they had fallen into sin. And if John's 
baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. Christian 
baptism is not for that purpose. These persons had 
no sins to remit, and they receiv^ed no inward 
spiritual benefit by being re-baptized ; for they did 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION — NOT SCRIPTUEAL. bd 

not receive the Holy Ghost until the apostle had laid 
his hands upon them. 

Another favorite passage offered in proof of this 
doctrine is Romans vi, 17 : " But God be thanked, 
ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from 
the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered 
you." In presenting this as a proof text the ques- 
tion is asked, " What is the doctrine of which the 
apostle is speaking ? " And the answer invariably is, 
" The death, burial and resurrection of Christ." 
They then inquire what the form of this doctrine is; 
and answer immersion, or a figurative death, burial 
and resurrection in the water. Paul, they then 
claim, had reference to the baptism of the Romans 
for the remission of their sins. He was not speak- 
ing of water baptism in this chapter, but of the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit, by which they had been 
caused to die unto sin, and had been raised into a 
newness of life. These teachers always quote this 
passage as if it read : " You have obeyed from the 
heart the form of the doctrine," instead of " that 
form of doctrine." These Roman converts had not 
obeyed the form of the doctrine, but " that form of 
doctrine " itself. There is a vast difference between 
the form of the doctrine, and " that form of doctrine." 
The form of a house is not a house. The form of a 
man is not a man. If a person in speaking of a 
cottage-house says that John Smith has that form of 



64 CAMP3ELLISM REVEALED. 

house, we would understand him to mean that Mr. 
Smith owned a cottage-house. But if it was said of 
him that he had the form of that kmd of house, we 
would not think he owned a house at all, but that he 
had the architectural plan, or a photograph of a house 
of that description. If it were published that the 
Smithsonian Institute had in its museum the form of 
an Esquimau, the people would naturally suppose 
that it was a skeleton ; but if the announcement 
read, that form of man called Esquimau, they would 
take it that there was a real man there, and not his 
form. Baptism does not symbolize doctrine. But 
if we admit that it is the form of the doctrine, it 
does not help their cause. These people had not 
obeyed the form, but had actually died unto sin and 
been raised into a life of righteousness. They were 
then dead, crucified and raised into a life of holiness, 
and no momentary dipping will represent their state. 
This work of grace had been wrought in them by 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit. These teachers may 
choose the form of the doctrine, but we prefer the 
doctrine itself. If they can be satisfied with the 
shadow, all right, but we prefer the substance. 

We have now examined the chief texts chat the 
advocates of this doctrinal scheme rely upon to sus. 
tain their doctrine of baptismal remission, and have 
found that the doctrine is unscriptural. And the 
only way that these texts have been made to teach 



BAPTISMAL REMISSION NOT SCRIPTUEAL. 



65 



any such doctrine has been by having a theory to 
prove, and picking the passages that might be made 
to aid in maintaining this theory, l^o one without 
a theory to prove would ever find any support for 
this doctrine in the Scriptures. 




CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 



CHAPTER YI. 

BAPTISMAL EEGENEEATION — ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 
"This second or new birth, which inducts into the Kingdom 
of God, is always subsequent to a death and burial, as it will be 
into the everlasting kingdom of glory. It is indeed a literal 
death and burial before a literal resurrection into the heavenly 
and eternal kingdom. It is also a metaphorical or figurative 
death and burial, before the figurative resurrection or new birth 
into the Kingdom of Heaven. Water is the element in which 
this burial and resurrection is performed, according to the con- 
stitutional laws of the Kingdom of Heaven. Hence, Jesus con- 
nects the water and the Spirit when speaking of entering the 
Kingdom of God . . . Cornelius and his family were as devout 
and pioas as any of you. . . . Yet . . .it was necessary 'to 
tell Mm words by which himself and house might he saved.' 
These words were told him: he believed them, and received the 
Holy Spirit; yet still he must be born again. For a person can 
not be said to be born again of anytJiing wJiich he receives, and 
still less of miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. He was 
immersed, and into the Kingdom of God he came." 

Christian System, pp. 161, 239. 

Immersion, according to Campbellism, is a pan- 
acea for all the effects of sin, whether inherited from 
the progenitor of the race, or caused by actual 
transgression. The water not only has the power 
to wash away the sins, but it regenerates and sancti- 
fies. In fact, it is boldly asserted that immersion is 
regeneration, and that regeneration is immersion. 
And, of course, these teachers claim to base this 
doctrine upon the teachings of the Bible. 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION — ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 67 

The literal rendering of Jo^n iii., 5, is mainly 
relied upon to prove their theory of baptismal 
regeneration. It reads : " Yerily, verily, I say unto 
thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the 
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." 
It will be necessary, in order to understand the 
meaning of this text, to enter into an examination 
of the circumstances under which it was spoken. 
Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, came to Jesus by 
night to inquire concerning his doctrines, and Jesus 
proclaimed to him this great truth : " Except a man 
be born ao^ain he can not see the kino^dom of God." 
The word anothen^ which is rendered " again," has 
two meanings — from above, and again. Nicodemus 
takes the latter signification of the word, and there- 
fore fails to comprehend what the Saviour meant ; 
and is led to ask, in astonishment : " How can a man 
be born when he is old ? Can he enter a second time 
into his mother's womb, and be born ? " Christ then 
explains to him that he was not speaking of a phys- 
ical, but of a spiritual birth, and illustrates his 
meaning by a symbol that was familiar to every 
Jew. He says: ''Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 
Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, 
he can not enter into the kingdom of God." 
The ruler was well acquainted with the use of water, 
in the ritual of Judaism, to signify the cleansing 
influence of the Holy Spirit. And Jesus, in order 



68 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

to show him. that what he meant by being born 
again did not refer to the physical man. declares that 
a man must be "born of water and the Spirit." 
There was nothing new in thus representing the 
work of the Spirit under the figure of water, for it 
"was the standing symbol of spiritual cleansing under 
the law. Tlie Old and New Testaments abound in 
such passages as the following : " Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and you shall be clean : from 
all your filth in ess, and from all your idols, will I 
cleanse you." (Ezek. xxxvi, 25.) The advocates of 
baptismal regeneration dare not contend that the 
people to whom this prophecy refers were really 
cleansed from their moral filthiness and idolatries 
by being baptized with water; for the mode is 
sprinkling, and not immersion. The reference in 
this text to the application of water to the body by 
sprinkling is undoubtedly emblematic of the purify- 
ing of the soul by the Holy Spirit. Again, we read : 
" In the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus 
stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him 
come unto me and drink. He that belie vet h 
on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his 
belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But 
this spake he of the Spirit, which they that 
believe on him should receive : for the Holy Ghost 
was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet 
glorified.)" (Jno. vii, 37-39.) This explicit statement 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION — ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 69 

from the lips of the Son of God himself proves con- 
clusively tbat water was the recognized sjniibol of the 
Hol}^ Spirit. 

If " born of water" in this passage means baptism, 
then Christ must have meant two separate and 
distinct things by "born of water and the Spirit." 
Therefore a man cannot enter the kingdom of God 
without two distinct births, one of water and the 
other of the Spirit. But he was not talking of two 
separate and distinct things, but of one and the same 
thing under the similitude of water. The meaning 
is as water cleanses, refreshens and purifys the body; 
so the Holy Spirit cleanses, renews and purifies the 
soul. Regeneration is a spiritual transformation, 
and not a mere bodily act. It is the renewing of 
the soul, and not the washing of the body. And as 
ISTicodemus had failed to comprehend the spiritual 
nature of the ncAV birth, Christ introduces the water, 
which was the well known emblem of spiritual 
cleansing, to illustrate what he meant by being born 
again. 

John the Baptist, in foretelling the special work of 
the promised Messiah, uses language very similar to 
that which Christ employed on this occasion. He 
says: "I indeed baptize you with water unto 
repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier 
than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he 
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and fire." 



70 CAMPBELLISM EEYEALED. 

(Matt, iii, 11.) The word fire certainly does not 
mean literal fire. And undoubtedly it was not lit- 
erally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost ; for it was 
not spoken to the disciples, but to the multitude that 
received John's baptism. The word fire is used 
figurativel}^, and represents the effect of the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost, The reference is to the purify- 
ing effect of fire upon the precious metals. As fire 
purifies and refines the gold, separating from it the 
dross ; so the Holy Spirit shall purify and refine 
the soul, separating from it the dross of sin. Pre- 
cisely the same thing is meant here by " the Holy 
Ghost and fire," that Jesus meant by " water and the 
Spirit." 

It is manifest from the remainder of his discourse, 
that Jesus did not refer to baptism when he said 
'*^born of water." For he reasoned with Nicodemus 
in a logical manner, illustrating spiritual things by 
temporal things. He informs the ruler that it would 
do him no good if he could be born a second time, 
a natural birth, for : " That which is born of the 
flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is 
spirit." Jesus refers to the well-known law, that like 
begets like. Flesh begets flesh, and Spirit begets 
spirit. And if the phrase " born of water" means 
baptism, the logical conclusion is, that which is born 
of water is water. If water can have any effect on 
the souls of those immersed in it, it must of neces- 



BAPTISMAL EEGENEEATION ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 71 

sity beget ia them its own likeness. Perhaps this 
may account for the great love these people have 
for the water. 

The trouble with these teachers is that they stop, 
when they read in this chapter as far as the word 
water. This discourse continues to the twenty- 
second verse. It is not reasonable to suppose 
this learned master in Israel was so dull that he 
could not understand what immersion was. He was 
soon led to see by the explanations that Jesus gave 
that he was speaking of a spiritual birth ; and the 
question naturally arises in his mind: "How can 
these things be ? " And Christ tells him just how 
they can be, by setting forth, from the fourteenth to 
the eighteenth verse,explicitly the condition of salva- 
tion. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up ; that 
whosoever belie veth in him shall not perish, but have 
eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he 
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
in him should not perish, but have everlasting 
life. . . He that believeth on him is not condemned : 
but he that believeth not is condemned already, be- 
cause he hath not believed in the name of the only be- 
gotten Son of God." Christ should have said, if he 
designed to teach the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
tion: "As Moses baptized the Israelites in the Ked Sea, 
even so must the Son of man be baptized ; That 



Y2 OAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

whosoever is baptized into him should not perish, 
but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
is baptized into him should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life. He that' is baptized into him is not con- 
demned ; but he that hath not been baptized is con- 
demned already, because he hath not been baptized 
into the name of the only begotton Son of God." 

If the phrase " born of water " in this passage is 
to be taken as proof that Christ taught the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration, then, he also taught the 
doctrine of eucheristic regeneration. For in John 
vi, 53-54, he ssijs : " Then Jesus said unto them, 
Yerily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye 
have no life in you. "Whoso eateth my flesh and 
drinketh my blood, hath eternal life ; and I will 
raise him up at the last day." Mark it -well, he 
does not say you have no abiding life, but that you 
have no life. And if we are to understand by " born 
of water" that no one can enter the kingdom of God 
without baptism, we must also understand that the 
sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a necessary con- 
dition to the procurement of spiritual life. And if 
the language is figurative in the last text, it is also 
figurative in the former. 

Another text that is adduced to support this theory 
is : " ISTot by works of righteousness which we have 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION — ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 73 

done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the 
washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost ; which he shed on us abundantly through 
Jesus Christ." (Titus iii, 5-6.) It seems strange that 
they should have taken this text to prove this doc- 
trine, for they could not have found one that more 
positively contradicts it. The distinguishing char- 
acteristic of Campbellism is salvation by works. 
And if baptism is a work of righteousness, as these 
teachers claim, it has nothing whatever to do with 
procuring salvation ; for the apostle declares that it 
is not " by works of righteousness which we have 
done." It is taught by Campbell that immersion 
and regeneration are the same thing. And if in this 
place " the washing of regeneration " means immer- 
sion, then it involves the absurdity of making the 
effect the cause, the washing becomes the thing 
washed ; and the cleansing becomes the thing 
cleansed. The relative " which " indicates that both 
'' the washing of regeneration " and "the renewing 
of the Holy Ghost" were accomplished by some- 
thing that was shed upon these people. And if it 
was shed upon them, it could not have been immer- 
sirni ; hence if " the washing of regeneration " has 
reference to water baptism, immersion could not 
have been the mode practiced at that time. Immer- 
sion is a work done by man, but here God is said 
to save us by the regenerating grace shed on us 



74 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

through faith in Jesus Christ. The " washing " and 
"renewing" are but parts of the one divine process 
by which the sins are washed away, and the soul is 
created anew. 

The assumption that, " according to the constitu- 
tional laws of the Kingdom of Heaven," immersion 
inducts into the kingdom of God is wholly gratuitous. 
Paul expressly declares that this is accomplished by 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit : " For by one Spirit 
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be 
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and 
have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (I. 
Cor. xii, 13.) He does not say, "for by one water we 
are all baptized into one body;" but by "one Spirit are 
we all baptized into one bod}^" The attempt to 
destroy the force of this text by saying that it is by 
" the direction of one Spirit we are all baptized into 
one body " is utterly futile. For if this is the case, 
then it is by " the direction of one Spirit that we are 
all made to drink." But what is it we are made to 
drink by "the direction of one Spirit?" This 
shows the absurdity of any such an interpretation. 
'No sophistry can evade the force of this text; it 
stands as an everlasting refutation of the doctrine 
of salvation by water. 

The highest aim of Campbellism is not above the 
development of the moral nature. The whole ten- 
dency of the system is toward that fallacious doc- 



BAPTISMAL KEGENEKATION — ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 75 

trine, that man by his own strength and works can 
bring himself into harmony with God. In other 
words, that there is no need of a supernatural work 
in conversion, but a man by his own efforts can save 
himself. 

l^either the reformation of the life, the observance 
of the right of baptism, nor the performance of be- 
nevolent acts, can make any man a child of God. 
For the Christian life is not a highly developed form 
of the natural life. It is not the result of the devel- 
opment of the moral character. The germ of divine 
life must first be implanted in the soul, before there 
can be any spiritual life. The farmer who would 
spend all of his time in cultivating, fertilizing, and 
irrigating his land might get it in a high state of 
cultivation ; but it would be impossible for him to 
raise any grain until he had first sown the seed. It 
is true he can keep down the weeds and make the 
ground rich and mellow, but he can do nothing more. 
He may use the best farming implements, the richest 
fertilizers, and may even deluge the land with water ; 
yet he can not in this way produce one kernel of 
grain. And so it does not matter how great the 
reformation of the sinner may be ; how many good 
deeds he may do ; how many times he is immersed. 
Tiiese things can not make him a Christian for they 
can not produce life. He may in this way, it is true, 
keep down many outward sins, and form a character 



T6 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

of great moral beauty. He niay be honest and good, 
kind and generous, pure and true, but these of them- 
selves can not bring forth life. Before he can have 
spiritual life the seed of this life must be implanted 
in the soul. When this has been done he can de- 
velop it by cultivation, but cultivation will not gen- 
erate it. 

A man may build up a good moral character by 
the observance of certain rules based upon the teach- 
ings of the Scriptures. He may be able to make 
himself more and more moral until he reaches a cer- 
tain limit ; but he can not go beyond this limit 
and make himself godly. For godliness is not 
a moral character built up around a man, but a 
life within him. In this point is the difference be- 
tween the highest development of the moral nature 
in the natural man, and the Christ life in the Chris- 
tian. The one, conforms mechanically to the letter 
of the law, while the other conforms to its spirit. 
The result in one is the building up of the moral 
character like an architectural edifice, by adding one 
detached good w^ork to another. The result in the 
other is the development of a new life from the birth 
and growth of a vital energy implanted in the soul. 
The moral life has its foundations on the earth, and 
can be built up toward the skies, but it never reaches 
heaven. The Christ life has its origin in heaven, and 
descends from thence into the soul. It is a new life 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 77 

born from above. There is a whole realm of differ- 
ence between them. By this birth that comes from 
above, the Christian is brought into the realm of 
spiritual life, while the one who depends on outward 
things to save him, after he has done his best, is still 
left in the realm of spiritual death. 

The natural man is spiritually dead, and nothing 
that he can do of himself can bring him into the 
enjoyment of spiritual life. This life can not come 
independent of antecedent life. The natural man 
being dead in " trespasses and sins " can not raise 
himself into " newness of life." He is in the realm 
of spiritual death, and there is an impassable gulf 
fixed between it and the realm of spiritual life. And 
the person who would enter this upper or spiritual 
kingdom, must be born from above. He must be the 
recipient of something from this realm above him 
before he can enter it. The declaration of Christ is : 
" Except a man be born again, " born from above, 
"he can" not see the kingdom of God. " 

The assertion that " a person can not be said to be 
born again of anything which he receives " is not 
supported by the facts in the case. If Mr. Campbell 
had said that a person can be born of that which he 
receives, and that, too, of the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit, his statement would have been in keeping 
with the truth; but as it is, there is not the least 
shadow of truth in it. This doctrine of baptismal 



Y8 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

regeneration is diametrically opposed to all the laws 
of Biogenesis, which excludes the possibility of the 
natural man becoming a spiritual man without the 
intervention of life. According to this science, he 
must be born from above, and of that which he re- 
ceives, or he will remain forever in the kingdom of 
spiritual death. 

" The passage from the mineral world to the 
plant or animal world is hermetically sealed on the 
mineral side. This inorganic world is staked off from 
the living world by barriers which have never yet 
been crossed from within. No change of substance, 
no modification of environment, no chemistrv, no 
electricity, nor any evolution can endow any 
single atom of the mineral world with the attri- 
bute of life. Only by the bending down into this 
dead world of some living form can these dead 
atoms be gifted with the properties of vitality; 
without this preliminary contact with life they 
remain fixed in the inorganic sphere forever."* 
Now, unless the human soul is an exception to all 
the known laws of life, this is equally true with 
regard to the natural man entering into the spirit- 
ual world. '' The passage from the natural world 
into the spiritual world is hermetically sealed on 
the natural side. The door from the inorganic to 
the organic is shut, no mineral can open it ; so the 
door from the natural to the spiritual is shut, and 

* Natural Law in the Spiritural World, p. 64. 



BAPTISMAL EEGENEEATIOIT — ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 79 

no man can open it. This world of natural men is 
staked off from the spiritual world by barriers 
which have never yet been crossed from within. 
No organic change, no modification of environment, 
no mental energy, no moral effort, no evolution of 
character, no progress of civilization can endow any 
single soul with the attribute of Spiritual Life."* 

There can not be found on the face of the earth a 
fountain or stream containino^ veo^etable or animal 
life, where by dipping into it a handful of soil, it 
will become a living plant, or by immersing in it a 
lump of clay, it will be transformed into a living 
man. But if this doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
tion is true, spiritual life is, in some mysterious man- 
ner, stored up in rivers, creeks, ponds and baptistries ; 
and is measured out to all that are immersed in 
them for the purpose of procuring it. Possibly the 
Spirit which " moved upon the face of the waters " 
in the beginning has never left them, and all that 
are immersed in them instantaneously inhale the 
life-giving Spirit. This must be the case, for Mr. 
Campbell says : " The soul of the intelligent sub- 
ject is as fully immersed into the Lord Jesus, 
as his body is immersed in the water. His soul 
rises with the Lord Jesus, as his body rises out 
of the water ; and into one spirit with all the 
family of God he is immersed. "f 

* Natural Law in the Spiritual World, p. 66. 
+ Christian System, p. U7 . 



80 CAMPBELIJSM EETEALED. 

If a person is not born of what lie receives, but 
must be immeisecl in the water of regeneration 
before he can enter the kingdom of God, there can 
be no great impassable gulf fixed between the 
natural and the spiritual world. And the passage 
from the one world to the other can not be hermetic- 
ally sealed on the natural side. The chasm is a very- 
narrow insignificant affair filled with water. And 
the crossing is easily accomplished; all a person has 
to do is to be immersed, and into the kingdom of 
God he comes. He is not born from above, but 
from beneath. There is nothing that comes down 
to him, that brings him into the kingdom above 
him, on the contrary, he is brought up into it by 
going down into the water. But a man must be 
born of the Spirit — born of that which he receives — 
or he can never have any spiritual life. It can be 
truly said, that no belief of a fact, no reformation 
of the life, no confession to the truth of a fact, no 
immersion, no number of benevolent acts can 
endow a single soul with the attribute of spiritual 
life. 

" The spiritual world is guarded from the world 
next in order beneath it by a law of Biogenesis — 
'except a man be born again.' . . . 'except a man be 
born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into 
the kingdom of God.' It is not said, in this enuncia- 
tion of the law, that if the condition be not fulfilled 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION — ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 8i 

the natural man will not enter the kingdom of God. 
The word is ' can not.' For the exclusion of the 
spiritually inorganic from the kingdom of the spirit- 
ually organic is not arbitrary. Nor is the natural 
man refused admission on unexplained grounds. 
His admission is a scientific impossibility. Except 
a mineral be born 'from above' — from the kingdom 
just above it — it can not enter the kingdom just 
above it. And except a man be born ' from above ' 
by the same law, he can not enter into the kingdom 
just above him. There being no passage from one 
kingdom to another, whether from inorganic to 
organic, or from organic to spiritual, the interven- 
tion of life is a scientific necessity if a stone or 
planUor animal or a man is to pass from a lower to 
a higher sphere. The plant stretches down to the 
dead world beneath it, touches its minerals and 
gases with its mystery of life, and brings them up 
enobled and transformed to the living sphere. The 
breath of God, blowing where it listeth touches 
with its mystery of life the dead souls of men, bears 
them across the bridgeless gulf between the natural 
and the spiritual, between the spiritual inorganic, 
and the spiritual organic, endows them with its own 
high qualities, and develops within them these new 
and secret faculties, by which those who are born 
again are said to see the Kingdom of God." * 

*Natural Law in Spirit World, p. 66. 



82 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

Nothing of this kind takes place when a person is 
immersed. And the author of this system of faith 
declares that "a person can not be said to be born 
again of anything which he receives," not even of the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit, as in the case of Corne- 
lius, hence no moral change can be wrought in 
the soul by the administration of this rite. Christ 
said of the new birth : " Marvel not that I said 
unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind 
bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound 
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and 
whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the 
Spirit." This language undoubtedly means that the 
work of the Spirit in regeneration is unseen and 
indiscernible to the natural eye. But there is 
nothing mysterious or invisible about this work, if 
it is accomplished by immersion. What similarity 
is there between a person being immersed in the 
water, and the blowing of the wind ? You can not 
see the wind, tell from whence it comes, nor whither 
it goes. But you can see the water, trace it to its 
fountain head, and follow its course to the sea. At 
all times the water can be located, and those that 
have been immersed in it know all the details of 
their birth into the kingdom. There is not the 
slightest agreement between the teaching of the 
Saviour and the doctrine heid by these teachers. 
This " ancient gospel " that they teach is not the 
same that Christ taught. 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. 83 

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration as held 
by the followers of Campbell is contrary to the 
laws of Biogenesis, to common sense, and the express 
declaration of the Scriptures ; therefore the con- 
clusion is inevitable, that it is an absolute impossi- 
bility. 



84 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 



CHAPTER YII. 

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ITS ABSURDITY. 

" In one sense a person is born of bis father; but not until he 
is first born of his mother. So in every place where water and 
the Spirit, or water and the Word, are spoken of, ^/<e icater stands 
first. Every child is born of its father when it is born of its 
mother. Hence, the Saviour put the mother first, and the Apos. 
ties follow him . . . Being born imparts no new life; but is sim- 
ply a change of state, and introduces into a new mode of living . . . 
All the means of saUation are means of enjoyment, not of procure- 
ment. Birth itself i3 not for procuring, but for enjoying, the life 
possessed before birth. So in analogy : — no one is to be baptized, 
or to be buried with Christ; no one is to be put under the water 
of regeneration for the purpose of procuring life, but for the 
purpose of enjoying the life of which he is possessed." 

Christian System, pp. 201, 207, 266. 

However plausible the assertion that birth is not 
for the procurement, but for the enjoyment of life, 
may seem at first sight, it is not founded on fact. 
It is true that a c hild before birth has both a 
foetal life and the possibilit}^ of a larger life, but the 
latter can only be obtained by entrance into a larger 
sphere ; where by correspondence with the earth, the 
air, and the sun its latent organs and faculties, that 
otherwise are destined to perish, may be developed. 
And, strictly speaking, this foetal life is all the life a 
child can be said to possess previous to its birth. It 
is not born into the world simply to enjoy this lower 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ITS ABSURDITY. 85 

form of life, but for the purpose of procuring this 
higher form of life. It is dead to this higher life 
until after its advent into the world, and, if it never 
has any higher life than that possessed prior to birth, 
it is never said to have lived. Kow, in the case of the 
sinner it is equally true, that he has both a natural 
life and the possibility of a spiritual life, but he can 
only procure this latter life by his entrance into the 
kingdom of God ; where his soul is brought into cor- 
respondence with God, by which its dormant powers 
are reanimated. As the result of the fall man's soul 
became impaired, defiled, and deadened, but it was 
not entirely obliterated. Although his soul is devoid 
of life, yet it is still capable of being regenerated. 
It forms the basis of spiritual life. But if the sinner 
never possesses a life higher than that which he en- 
joys in his unregenerate state, it can never be said of 
him that he lived spiritually. 

Man is spiritually dead. He does not possess spirit- 
ual life in any degree. There is no doctrine that is 
more clearly taught in the Scriptures than this. God 
said of the forbidden fruit : '' In the day thou eatest 
thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam ate and died, 
for God can not lie. "We know he did not die a phys- 
ical death; therefore it must have been a spiritual death. 
And alas, for us, the effects of this death did not 
stop with him, but passed upon all of his posterity. 
We do not inherit from him a single spark of spirit- 



86 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

ual life. Mr. Campbell says : " Thus b}^ one man 
sin entered into the world, and death by that one 
sin ; and so death, the wages of sin, has fallen on all 
the offspring of Adam, ' because in him they have all 
sinned, or been made mortal, and consequently are 
born under condemnation to that death which fell 
upon our common progenitor because of his trans- 
gression." ^' JSTow, if man is dead, to the truth of 
which this quotation seems clearly to attest, he can 
not be in the possession of spiritual life. Spiritual death 
is the separation of the soul from communion with 
God. The Bible teaches that this separation is com- 
plete, therefore the death must be complete. 

Half truths are always the most deceptive. The 
statement that "birth itself is not for procuring " life 
has sufficient appearance of truth to deceive the un- 
informed. But unfortunately for the doctrine of 
baptismal regeneration, it is for procuring life. But 
we will admit without argument that immersion does 
not procure life. The sinner has no soul life, 
and as he is not immersed for the purpose 
of procuring life, of course he is as dead spiritually 
on coming out of the w^ater as he was before enter- 
ing it. If a person is only "put under the water of 
regeneration for the purpose of enjoying the life of 
which he is possessed," we are perfectly willing to 
concede the point ; for physical life is all the life 

* Christian System, p. 27. 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ITS ABSURDITY. 87 

which he possesses. And a bath, as a general thing, 
is highly conducive to the health and vigor of the 
body. Though Campbell admonishes others not to 
speak of immersion as a mere bodily act, yet in this 
place he himself virtually admits that it is only a 
bodily act. And if this act does not procure life, 
what, in the name of common sense, is the use of 
being immersed? A person can get just as much 
enjoyment by taking a bath privately. According 
to this system Cornelius and his family enjoyed the 
blessings of life before they were born. They were 
baptized with the Holy Spirit, and spake with 
tongues, and magnified God, giving every evidence 
of life ; and had as yet never even been introduced to 
their mother. And if these persons obtained all the 
blessings of life without being baptized, simply 
through the exercise of faith, what is the use of 
any one going under the water to enjoy these 
blessings ? Surely God is not a respecter of persons. 
Cambellism smacks strongly of the doctrine of 
Pelagius, that man has sustained no moral injury by 
the fall. 1^0 one can come to any other conclusion, 
when he carefully considers its teachings and prac- 
tical workings among the people. This doctrine is 
clearly taught when it is said that '^ being born im- 
parts no new life ; " and, that the sinner is immersed 
" for the purpose of enjoying the life of which he is 
possessed." There is no such thing, according to 



00 CA^IPBELLISM KEYEALED. 

this system, as moral depravity. It does not recog- 
nize any such thino: as orio-inal sin. 

The example that Mr. Campbell gives to illustrate 
the new birth is of an Eno'lishman comiuo: to this 
country desiriug to become an American citizen. 
He is informed by " Columbus" that he must be born 
again; but he does not understand what this means. 
He is then told that he must go before a court and 
renounce his allegiance to Great Britain, and swear 
fidelity to the government of the United States.. 
And he is assured that when he has complied with 
these conditions he will be a citizen of this country, 
and will receive naturalization papers as an evidence 
of his citizenship. This fable teaches that the sin- 
ner is an alien to the kingdom of heaven; and that 
the institution of baptism bestows upon him the 
rights of citizenship. There is no change in the 
character of the foreigner, he simply has crossed the 
great deep, and is living under a different form of 
government. Hence the sinner receives no moral 
change in immersion, he is simply introduced "into 
a new mode of living." He is changed from an 
alien to a naturalized citizen. He is morally the 
same, but this does not matter, as he has sustained 
no moral injury by the fall. 

Eegeneration is a change of state, it is true, but 
this is not all the benefit it bestows. The transfor- 
mation is not altogether outward in its effect. It is 



BAPTISilAL REGENEEATIOX ITS ABSURDITY. 89 

not merely a change of state, or the introduction 
into a new mode of hving. It involves all this, but 
it is something far deeper. It is a change of heart, 
a complete renovation of the moral nature, a resur- 
rection, a passing from death to life. It is not the 
old life placed under new conditions. Old things 
have passed away, and all things have become new. 
The things that were once loved are now hated, and 
the things that were hated are now loved. 

The word regenerate, as used in the gospel, means 
reproduction. But if a person is already in posses- 
sion of life, he can not be born again, for there is 
nothing in him to be reproduced. The only subject 
of regenerating grace is a soul devoid of life. And 
no one can be born again without having a new 
life engendered within him. The apostle refers to 
the original production of life in the soul, when he 
says, God " hath begotten us again." Sin caused 
the destruction of life in the beginning, and this 
regenerating act needs to be performed in order 
that the soul may live again. It became so degen- 
erated and polluted by sin that no mending or 
repairing would answer, it must be renewed by the 
quickening power of the Holy Spirit. And this new 
animating principle that is thus engenderea in the 
soul lifts it at once from the death of sin to the life 
of righteousness. 

The moral change by which the soul is reunited 



90 campbellis:m revealed. 

with God is represented in the Scriptures as a res. 
urrection from the dead. The old nature in us is 
so carnal and perverse that it needs an entire reno- 
vation. And this transformation is radical and 
complete. The old nature, called the old man, is 
put off, crucilSed, and put to death. And the new 
nature, spoken of as the new man, is put on, and 
called a new creature, or, more properly, a new 
creation. If "being born imparts no new life " it 
would be a perversion of the truth to represent the 
work of regeneration by such symbols as these. 
They plainly indicate that it is not a mere change 
of state, but an inward spiritual change. If the doc- 
trine of baptismal regeneration is true, there is no 
change wrought in the nature of the soul. And all 
the benefit that accrues to the person who is regen- 
erated — immersed — is to his physical man. There 
can be as much benefit derived from an ordinary 
bath as can be procured by going under "the water 
of regeneration." And he who submits to this 
institution, expecting to be made better morally, is 
deceived ; for the whole thing is an empty form — a 
mere farce. 

This system makes a person, no matter how back- 
sliden or vile he has become, a naturalized citizen of 
the kingdom of heaven. And, at the same time, 
it teaches that a man, no matter how pure and up- 
right he ma}^ have always lived, is in the kingdom 



BAPTISMAL KEGENEEATION — ITS ABSURDITY. 91 

of the devil, simply because he has not been im- 
mersed. Though the Scriptures make use of the 
term alien, yet they nowhere recognize the un- 
baptized person as such, because he has not been 
baptized. And if a person is a citizen of the kingdom 
after he has become besotted in sin, and he continues 
in his sinful condition until death overtakes him 
it involves the absurdity, that either immersion is an 
act which render a person's calling and election sure, 
no matter what his character may be, or that he 
will go down to the kingdom of everlasting death, 
while by virtue of his immersion he is a member of 
the kingdom of heaven. 

If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is true, 
it involves the absurdity of making the regeneration 
of the soul depend more upon the administrator of 
the rite of baptism, than it does upon, either the 
goodness and mercy of God, or the repentance and 
faith of the individual himself. It makes no differ- 
ence how strong his faith may be; how sincerely he 
repents of his sins ; how earnestly he pleads for 
salvation ; he can not be saved until he can find some 
one willing to immerse him. If he fails to find any 
one to put him under " the water of regeneration," 
or when found he refuses to comply with his request; 
and he dies without being immersed, his soul is hope- 
lessly lost, not through any fault of his own, but 
because the condition of salvation was such that he 



92 CAMPBELLISM KEVEALED. 

could not comply with it. Can we suppose that a 
God of infinite wisdom would make the destiny of 
an immortal soul depend on any such a contingency ? 
This doctrine so limits the power of the God of 
Omnipotence that he can not regenerate a single 
soul without calling to his aid one of his finite 
creatures. The fact that it is derogatory to the 
character of God ought to be sufficient to condemn 
the doctrine, if there was nothing more against. 

Christianity was designed by its author to be the 
universal religion. It stands to reason, therefore, 
that the means of salvation should be so adapted, 
that they would meet universally tlae conditions and 
circumstances under which the various families of 
the human race are placed. If this religion is for 
all mankind, it ought to be attainable in all lands 
and by all peoples. But, if this doctrine of regener- 
ation by immersion is true, it can never be universal 
in its application. The chief tenet of Campbellism 
is, where there is no immersion, there can be no 
salvation. But immersion is not possible under all 
circumstances, nor practicable in all lands. In such 
countries as Greenland, Iceland, Labrador, Lapland, 
Siberia, Central Eussia, and other countries within 
the cold regions of the N'orth, the conditions would 
rarely ever be favorable to immerse their inhabitants. 
The mean annual temperature of many of these 
lands is seldom above the freezing point. For the 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION — ITS ABSURDITY. 93 

greater portion of the year their lakes and rivers 
are frozen to such a depth that to put any one 
under " the water of regeneration " would be an im- 
possibility. Christ has said : " Go ye therefore, and 
disciple all nations, immersing them into the name 
of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." * 
But the advocates of this doctrine can not go and 
disciple these nations ; for the impracticability of 
immersing them imposes a barrier that can not be 
overcome. There are millions of the human race 
that dwell in these far-off lands that can not be 
saved, because the plan of salvation has been so 
arranged that it is impossible for them to meet its 
conditions. And this is not applicable alone to the 
nations that inhabit the Arctic regions, but falls 
with equal force upon those who live in the tropics. 
In the torrid plains of Africa and Asia the water 
supply is barely sufficient to sustain life. A person 
may travel over large areas of these countries and 
not find sufficient water to slake his thirst, let alone 
in which to immerse any one. 

And this does not apply only to the inhabitants 
of the ice-bound regions of the frigid zones, or to the 
burning sands of the torrid zones, but to a much 
larger portion of the population of the globe. Often 
in our own land the cold is so intense in the winter 
that we can not immerse. We may safely reckon 

* Campbellite New Testament. 



94: CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

six months in the year in which a person can not be 
immersed, either without great inconvenience or 
without seriously endangering his health. Some 
times the drought prevails to such an extent that all 
the streams and pools are dried up, which renders it 
extremely difficult to find water enough for the pur- 
pose of immersion. This has led these people to 
construct baptistries in their churches. But bap- 
tistries, baptismal gowns, and baptismal pants are 
the legitimate offsprings of necessity ; and are only 
apologies for the impracticability of immersion. By 
these inventions they seek to surmount the difficulties 
that immersion imposes, that would otherwise debar 
men from the kingdom of God. But even by the aid 
of the inventions that they have sought out, they do 
not always overcome the obstacles with which they 
meet. An incident occurred in the little village of 
F — , in the state of Iowa, that illustrates the practical 
workings of this system. The Disciples began a pro- 
tracted meeting in this town in the middle of the 
winter, and during the progress of the meeting the 
weather turned extremely cold. The brethren had 
made ample provisions — by filling the baptistry with 
water — to bring all that might desire salvation into 
the kingdom. Three persons came forward, one 
night, and made '' the noble confession " which the 
" angels witnessed.'' But when the cover was lifted 
off of the baptistry, lo, the water had frozen into a 



BAPTISMAL REGEiSrEEATlON ITS ABSURDITY 95 

solid cake of ice. Souls were crying, " What must 
we do ? " And they had been told that they must be 
immersed for the remission of sins; but it was impos- 
sible to immerse them here. Delays are dangerous ; 
so they repaired. to the creek, about two miles dis- 
tance from the church. But once more were they 
doomed to disappointment ; nature seems to have 
conspired against them. For when they attempted 
to cut the ice they found that the water had frozen 
to the very bottom of the creek. Here were, as it 
was facetiously remarked, " Three souls to be born 
and the mother froze up.". It is natural for children 
to love their mother, and oh, how sad must have 
been the hearts of these brethren as they looked 
upon her who had given them birth, frozen as hard 
as adamant. But this is a matter of too vast impor- 
tance to ridicule. We wish we were caricaturing 
instead of presenting the facts as they transpired ; 
for immortal souls are at stake. If these persons 
had died there could have been no hope of their 
being saved, because God (?) required something of 
them that they could not do. The ice, however, is 
not the only hindrance with which they meet in 
endeavoring to carry out their doctrinal scheme. 
Sometimes, after they prepare for an immersion, the 
water all leaks out, and when they come seeking the 
mother they find the baptistry empty. How appro- 



96 CAilPBELLISM KEVEALED. 

priate it would be for them to sing, on such occa- 
sions : " Empty is the baptistry, mother's gone." 

This theory does not only require a temperate cli- 
mate, but a degree of health which the candidate 
does not always possess. How large a portion of 
our race are actually laboring under lingering dis- 
eases, which for years deprive them of the power to 
be immersed. And those who are brought to 
repentance on a death bed can not be " put under 
the water of regeneration," though they may be 
anxious to fulfil this requirement. Numerous cases 
might be adduced to prove this, but one will be suf- 
ficient. A young man on one of my charges, a son 
of a member of this Church, was fast wasting away 
with that dreadful disease of consumption; he 
repented of his sins and desired to put on Christ by 
baptism. Bat in his case immersion was impossible 
without its causing instant death. The young man 
felt that he ought to be baptized, but was not par- 
ticular as to the mode ; and after consulting with 
the brethren they sent for my local preacher, who, 
in tlie presence of one of their preachers and a 
houseful of the members of the Church, baptized 
him by sprinkling. And from that day to this, not 
one of them has ever been known to mention the 
circumstance. 

If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is true^ 
then God has established, as a condition to salvation, 



BAPTISMAL REGENERATION — ITS ABSURDITY. 97 

that which in his infinite knowledge he must have 
seen was un adapted to the circumstances under 
which, a large part of the inhabitants of the earth 
are placed. It does not speak well for his wisdom 
and goodness that he has instituted immersion as the 
" crowning act of man's restoration to God's favor," 
which is either oppressively burdensome or totally 
impracticable to thousands of the race. It can not 
be that a God of infinite goodness and love has so 
hedged in the way of life that thousands must be 
lost, no matter how strong their faith, sincere their 
repentance, or fervent their prayers, because their 
health will not permit, or their lot has been cast in a 
land where the temperature is not sufficiently mod- 
erate to allow them to be immersed. 

But if faith, is the condition on which spiritual 
life is granted, we can see how well it meets the exi- 
gency of every possible case. It does not matter 
where a man may be found, or under what circum- 
stances he may be placed ; whether he dwells in the 
regions of perpetual frosts or amidst the burning 
sands of the tropics ; whether he is free to roam or 
is confined behind prison bars ; whether he exults in 
the vigor of health or wastes away of some lingering 
disease ; whenever and wherever he will look to the 
Lord Jesus Christ by faith he can be saved. 

If God established the Christian religion for 
unlimited application — for the whole world — it must, 



98 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

of necessity, be obtainable under universal condi- 
tions. But immersion — the "act of turning to 
God"— is not applicable under all conditions, and 
can not be complied with under all circumstances ; 
therefore it is not the condition on which spiritual 
life is granted to the soul. The doctrine of baptis- 
mal regeneration is derogatory to the character of 
God, and it involves the whole system of religion in 
a bundle of absurdities. And surely the reader must 
be convinced, by this time, that this doctrine is 
wholly false and unutterably absurd. 




IS IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM ? 99 



CHAPTEE VIII. 

IS IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM ? 
"The change which is consummated by immersion is some- 
times calle'd in sacred style, ' being quickened,' or ' made alive,' 
' passing from death to life,' ' being born again,' ' having risen 
with Christ,' ' turning to the Lord,' ' repentance unto life.' . . 
All is mental and invisible before coming out of the water, and as 
immersion is the first act commanded, and the first constitutional 
act, so it was, in the commission, the act by which the Apostles 
were commanded to turn or convert those to God who believed 
their testimony. In this sense, then, it is the converting act. No 
man can scripturally be said to be converted to God until he is 
immersed." 

Christian System, pp. 60, 210. 

All of the doctrines of Campbellism are based upon 
the assumption that immersion alone is baptism. 
And if it can be established beyond a reasonable 
doubt that immersion is not the mode of baptism, 
this whole system falls to the ground. If, on the 
examination of the grounds for exclusive immersion, 
even a doubt arises in the mind as to whether this 
is the mode of baptism, just that much discredit is 
thrown upon this doctrinal system. If it is the 
mode, it does not prove that these doctrines are 
true ; but if it is not the mode they can not be true. 
And it is not necessary, in order to show that immer- 
sion is not the mode of baptism, to prove that affusion 
is the mode. The burden of proof rests entirely upon 



100 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

our opponents. They must prove beyond a reasona- 
ble doubt that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 
The Greek word haptizo^ which is transcribed into 
our language baptize, is pre-eminently the pivotal 
word in this discussion. About its meaning the 
battle has always raged the thickest. It is claimed 
that it has but one, and only one, meaning, being 
" as definite, clear, and unequivocal, as any word in 
any language ever spoken.'' It is held by immer- 
sionists that this term denotes the action or mode 
alone in which anything is done, but we under- 
stand it to be a generic and and not a specific word, 
expressing the thing done, and not the manner 
in which it is done. No one word can be taken 
as the equivalent of haptizo, for one word can not 
exhaust its meaning. If it can be definitely shown 
that this word is generic in its signification, then the 
question is decided, and there is no escape from the 
verdict. How, and in what sense, then, is it used ? 
Let us carefully search out its meaning. There are 
two primary causes that fix the signification of words, 
namely, derivation and usage. What then first is 
the derivation of haptizo f It is derived from the 
word hapto. It will be in the line of our investiga- 
tions first to inquire into the meaning and use of this 
word. And if we find that hapto^ the root of babtizo^ 
does not always signify immerse, then it will be con- 
clusive evidence that its derivative does not always 
mean this. 



IS IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM ? 101 

The word hapto originally meant to dip, but its 
meaning was enlarged by extension. And from sig- 
nifying dip, it came to signify to dye by dipping^ 
because this was the usual way of dyeing; and 
finally from dyeing by dipping, it came to denote 
dyeing in any manner. At length, it came to have 
these various meanings, acquired in its use in connec- 
tion with the dyer's art, independent of their origin. 
The verb "to ship" is a good example of how words 
extend their meaning. It once meant to transport 
by ship, but it has now come to mean any manner 
of transportation. Lexicographers who have devoted 
their lives to the study of the Greek language, and 
who, by their diversified reading and research have 
had the opportunity to observe this word in every 
variety of position, relation and contrast, are entitled 
to speak with authority as to its signification. 

In order that the reader may see for himself the 
various definitions of this term, we give below the 
different words by which it is rendered : 
Bedew Dye Plunge Steep 

Color Imbue Sprinkle Tinge 

Dip Immerse Smear Wash 

Draw Moisten Stain Wet. 

Although the opinions of learned men carry with 
them great weight ; yet, after all, usage is the sole 
arbiter of language. And that the reader may have 
the opportunity of seeing this word as it is used both 
in the Classics and the Scriptures, the following ex- 



%^ 



102 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

amples are given. Homer, in his battle of Frogs 
and Mice, says: "He breathless fell, and the lake 
was tinged ipapto) with the purple blood." Cer- 
tainly no one will contend that the lake was immersed 
in the blood of a single frog. Aristrophanes informs 
us that : " Magnes, an old comic actor of Athens, 
used the Lydian music, shaved his face, and smeared 
(bajpto) it with tawny washes." He did not dip his 
face into the washes, but they were rubbed or smeared 
over his face. Dr. Carson, an eminent Baptist 
critic, admits that " By anything implied or referred 
to in this example it could not be known that hapto 
ever signifies to dip." Hippocrates, speaking of the 
liquid used in the dyer's art, says : " When it drops 
upon the garments they are dyed {J)aptd)P Here is 
a clear case of baptism, so to speak, by the dropping 
of the liquid, as it was sprinkled or poured upon the 
garments. 

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, 
called the Septuagint, which was made about two 
hundred and seventy years before Christ, this word 
occurs in several places, but in none of them does it 
mean immerse. We notice first. Lev. xiv, 3-6: " If 
the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper, then the 
priest shall command to take for him that is to be 
cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, 
and scarlet, and hyssop, and the priests shall com- 
mand that one of the birds be killed in an earthen 



IS IMMEKSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM ? 103 

vessel over running water : as for the living bird, he 
shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, 
and the hyssop, and shall dip {J)aj)to) them and the 
living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed 
over the running water." It would be an utter 
impossibility to immerse the living bird in the blood 
of, the dead one, to say nothing of the cedar wood, 
and the scarlet, and the hyssop. In this passage 
bajpto can not possibly mean more than to smear, 
stain, or wet with the blood. This word occurs 
again in the sixteenth verse of the same chapter : 
"The priest shall dip (bapto) his right finger in the 
oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the 
oil with his finger seven times before the Lord." A 
person can not hold sufiicient oil in the hollow of his 
hand to admit of the total immersion of his finger. 
The priest must, therefore, have moistened his finger 
with the oil that he held in his hand. An account 
is given of the strange punishment of the king of 
Babylon, in Daniel iv, 33 : " The same hour was 
the thing fufilled upon Nebuchadnezzar, and he 
was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and 
his body was wet ijbapto) with the dew of heaven." 
The word in this instance is rendered wet, but it can 
not admit of the idea of immersion. The wetting 
was not brought about by dipping or plunging, but 
by the dew of heaven gently falling upon his body, 
which was the most mild form of sprinkling. Dr. 



104 CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

Cox, a distinguished immersionist, says the use of 
hajpto in this case : " It does not imply the manner 
in which the effect was produced, but the effect 
itself ; not the mode by which the body of the king 
was wetted, but its condition, as resulting from expos- 
ure to the dew of heaven." He admits that this 
word expresses the thing done, and not the manner 
of doing it ; and this is the meaning that we claim it 
has, not only in -this case, but wherever it is used. 
These examples prove conclusively, that, neither in 
its classical, nor scriptural use does hapto, have the 
exclusive meaning of immerse. Baptism was per- 
formed with water, blood, dye, oil and dew, yet 
there is not the least hint that in any instance it 
was by immersion. And as this word has so many 
different significations, haptizo can not be more 
specific in meaning than its root. 

An examination into the meaning and usage of 
haptizo will now be in order. Mr. Campbell says : 
" The ancient lexicons with one consent, give immerse 
as the natural, common, and primary sense of this 
word. There is not known to us a single exception. 
ISTor is there a received lexicon ancient or modern, 
that does ever translate 'this word by the terms 
sprinkling or pouring."* This would be convincing 
evidence for the univocal meaning of this word, if it 
were not for just one thing — it is not true. He 

* Christian System, p. 55 . 



IS IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM ? 105 

either never examined the ancient and modern lexi- 
cons, or else he willfully misrepresented them. For 
we have the authority of such masters of the Greek 
language as Schrevelius and Schleusner, whose lexi- 
cons have long been standard works, that this word 
does signify both to sprinkle and to pour. It is not 
claimed b}^ us that this is the only meaning of the 
word, but that sprinkle is one of its meanings. A 
few of the words by which hajytizo is translated are 
given below, any one of which is a natural, common, 
and literal meaning of the term. 

Overwhelm Purify 

Plunge Sprinkle 

Pour Wash 

Purge Wet. 

We might introduce many passages to illustrate 
the use of this word, but two or three will be suffi- 
cient. Justin declares that : " Sprinkling with holy 
w^ater was invented by demons in imitation of the 
true baptism signified by the prophets, that their 
votaries might have their pretended purifications by 
water." Here sprinkling and baptism are used as 
synonymous terms, clearly indicating that he 
regarded sprinkling Tvith water as baptism. [N'owhere 
do the prophets foretell that immersion should be 
baptism, on the contrary, as is intimated here, they 
bear testimony in favor of affusion. Greagory I^azi- 
anzen says : " I know of a fourth baptism, that of mar- 



Besmear 


Dip 


Cleanse 


Imbue 


Consecrate 


Immerse 


Devote 


Moisten 



106 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

tj^rdom and blood, and I know of a fifth,that of tears." 
The martyr was baptized by his blood flowing over 
his body, and the baptism of tears was b}" the tears 
running down the face. These baptisms were by 
either sprinkling or pouring. Origen, whose native 
language was the Greek, uses this same word haptizo 
in speaking of the water that was poured upon the 
altar on Mount Carmel by the command of Elijah. 
He says : " How came you to think thatElias when 
he should come, would baptize, when he did not, in 
Ahab's time, baptize the wood upon the altar, . . 
But ordered the priests to do that. . . He therefore, 
that did not himself baptize then, but assigned the 
work to others, how was he likely to baptize, when he, 
according to Malichi's prophecy, should come ?" Any 
person that is at all familiar with the ScrijDtures 
knows that on this occasion the water was poured 
upon the wood out of vessels at three different times. 
The greatest scholar in the early Church did not be- 
lieve that haptizo invariably meant to immerse, or 
he never would have used it in referring to this cir- 
cumstance. He must have understood pouring to be 
baptism, or he would not have employed haj>tizo in 
this connection. 

The Greeks never used laptizo in a religious sense, 
and the Jews never emplo3^ed it in any other sense. 
The Greek of the ]^ew Testament is not Classic 
Greek, but is Hebraistic Greek, that is, Hebrew ideas 



IS IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM ? lOT 

expressed in Greek words. If this word had always 
been used in the Classics in the sense of immerse, it 
would not determine its meaning when employed in 
the Scriptures. For classical usage is not a safe cri- 
terion for judging the meaning of Scriptural terms. 
The real meaning of haptizo as it is used in connec- 
tion with the rite of baptism, can only be ascertained 
by a careful examination of the passages in which it 
occurs in the ^ew Testament. 

The first text in which this word is used that we 
can learn anything with reference to the mode of 
application of the water is Mark vii, 2-4 : "And 
when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with 
defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they 
found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, ex- 
cept they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the 
tradition of the elders. And when they come from 
the market, except they wash (baptize themselves) 
they eat not. And many other things there be, 
which they have received to hold, as the washing of 
cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. " Had 
haptizo been anglicized in this place, instead of being 
translated by the word wash, much light would have 
been thrown upon the subject of baptism to those 
not familiar with the original language. The two 
phrases " Avash their hands " and " baptize them- 
selves " are used synonymously. The manner of do- 
ing a thing now is the same in this country that it 



108 CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

was two thousand years ago, for customs never 
change in the East. Modern travelers inform us that 
the prevailing custom at the present time is to wash 
the hands by having water poured upon them. And 
it is a well authenticated fact that the manner of 
washing hands among the Jews was by pouring 
water upon them, for which purpose a servant was 
employed. This is made evident from the language 
of II Kings, iii, 11 : " Here is Elisha, th^ son of 
Shophat, which poured water on the hands of 
Elijah. " It makes it all the more certain that this 
baptism was not by immersion, from the fact that 
the clothes became defiled as Avell as the body, when 
anyone was made unclean. These washings were 
very frequent, and it is not reasonable to suppose 
that the Jews deliberately placed upon themselves 
such grievous burdens as would be involved if the 
mode of these baptisms was immersion. It might 
be claimed that the cups, pots and brazen vessels 
were immersed, but the purpose was to make them 
clean ceremonially, and not to cleanse them in the 
ordinary sense of the word. In Christ's reply to a 
certain Pharisee, it is indicated that these vessels 
were not dipped : " I^ow do ye Pharisees make clean 
the outside of the cup and the platter , but your in- 
ward part is full of ravening and wickedness. " If 
they had immersed the vessels the inside would have 
been made clean as well as the outside. The tables, 



IS IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM? 109 

that is, beds, were large couches on which the Jews 
reclined while eating. And it is absurd to suppose 
that they immersed their beds before eating. For it 
would be a long time before they were fit for use 
again, if they dipped them in the water instead of 
sprinkling them with it. 

In John iii, 25-6, we are told that ; " There arose 
a question between some of John's disciples and the 
Jews about purifying. And they came unto John and 
said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond 
Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the 
same baptizeth, and all men come to him." We have 
here unmistakable proof that baptism and purifica- 
tion are one and the same thing. The dispute was 
about purifying, and to settle the question an appeal 
was made to John on the subject of baptism. And 
if the decision of a question on baptism could settle 
a controversy on purification, the two terms of 
necessity must have the same signification. Both 
John's baptism and that of the Saviour, then, were 
Jewish purifications ; and could not, therefore, have 
been by immersion. It is made clear from the cir- 
cumstances attending the miracle at Cana, that the 
Jews did not submerge their whole bodies in water 
in order to purify themselves : " There were set there 
six water pots of stone, after the manner of the 
purifyingof the Jews, containing two or three firkins 
apiece." (Jno. ii, 6.) The capacity of these vessels 



110 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

was somewhere from six to ten gallons. Surely no 
one will claim that they were large enough to admit 
of immersion. They were no doubt kept filled with 
water in readiness, that in the frequent use of water 
in their purifications, they might dip out what they 
needed without having to bring it from a distance. 
St. Paul gives further light on this subject, when 
speaking of the ceremonial cleansing required b}" the 
law, he says : '* Which stood only in meats and 
drinks, and diverse washings (baptisms) and cardinal 
ordinances." (Heb, ix, 10.) These baptisms were 
many and differed from each other ; for this is the 
sense in which the word diverse is used. If hajotizo 
is a word that expressess the mode, or manner of 
doing any thing, then this passage proves that there 
were various modes of administering these baptisms. 
It proves entirely too much for immersionists ; for 
there can never be any diversity in immersion as a 
mode. Nowhere do we read that immersion was 
enjoined upon the people under the law. The cere- 
monial cleansings, or baptisms, under the Levitical 
law were all performed by sprinkling water, blood, 
or oil upon the persons to be purified. The apostle 
refers to these various washings calling them bap- 
tisms, which shows beyond a doubt that haptizo was 
not used by the Kew Testament writers to mean 
immerse only, but is unquestionably employed to 
signify baptisms that were by sprinklmg. 



IS IMMEESION THE MODE OF BAPTISM ? Ill 

Again in I Cor, x, 1-2, it is said : " Ail our fathers 
were under the cloud, and all passed through the 
sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud 
and in the sea." It is plainly stated that there was 
a baptism on this occasion, but it could not have 
been by immersion. The attempt is made to prove 
an immersion here by asserting that the cloud rested 
on the two walls formed by the water, making a 
kind of tunnel, and that as the children of Israel 
passed through they were immersed. But if this 
was an immersion it is the dryest one on record. 
For at no time were they either under the water, or 
in the water ; but were all the time in the open air 
walking on dry ground. It is a mistake, however, 
to say that the cloud closed them in, forming a tun- 
nel ; for we learn that before they entered the sea, 
the cloud passed over them and stood between them 
and the Egyptians. The only time that they were 
under the cloud was before they entered the sea, 
and if they were baptized by the cloud it was while 
standing on th e shore. The baptism that they 
received in the sea must have been from the spray 
blowing over them. Paul says that the Israelites 
were baptized ; they were not immersed ; therefore 
they were baptized by affusion. Had the apostle 
said that the Egyptians were baptized we would 
concede the point at once that they were immersed; 
for they were as thoroughly wet as though immer- 
sion had been their mode of heathenish baptism. 



112 CAMPBELLTSM REVEALED. 

It must be evident to eveiy unbiased reader, that 
the usage of the term haptizo in the New Testa- 
ment does not justify the claim that it has no other 
signification but immerse. The examples cited make 
the fact clear as light, that it is used in a broad 
sense, including the application of water in any man- 
ner, whatever ; and not in the narrow and restricted 
sense of immersion. The evidence, so far as the 
use of this word is concerned, is against the idea of 
exclusive immersion, and is in favor of affusion a§ 
the true mode of baptism. 

But what haptizo lacks in proving the theory of 
exclusive immersion is sought to be made up by the 
use of the prepositions apo, eis, ek, and en. A fair 
example of the argument from the use of these 
words is given by Mr. Campbell ; he says : " Sprinkled 
them in the Jordan ! poured them in the Jordan ! 
immersed them in the Jordan. Can any one doubt 
which of these truly represents the original in such 
passages? I may sprinkle or pour water upon a 
person ; but to sprinkle or pour them into water is 
impossible. It is not said he baptized water upon 
them, but he baptized them in water, in the river."* 
It is by such sophistry as this that the doctrine 
of exclusive immersion is supported. The whole 
force of the argument in favor of immersion, which 
is deduced from such expressions as " in the Jor- 

* Christian System, p. 56. 



IS IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM 



113 



dan," " into the water," and " out of the water " is 
based upon the use of these four Greek particles. 
There is almost as much stress placed on their use 
as there is on hajptizo itself, and this method of 
reasoning has more effect on the uninformed than 
anv other. 

The translators of the authorized version of the 
New Testament have rendered these prepositions 
into English by various terms. Ajyo is translated by 
twenty-four different expressions, eis by thirty -six, 
ek by twenty-three, and e^i by thirty -two. By actual 
count ajpo is rendered in the ISTew Testament by 
from, three hundred and seventy -four times, eis by 
to or unto, five hundred and thirty-eight times, ^^by 
from, one hundred and eightj^-six times, and en by 
at, over a hundred, and by with, one hundred and 
fifty times. It will greatly aid the reader in the study 
of this subject to see how these words are rendered. 
"We give a few of their many meanings below. 



A'po 


Eis 


Ek 


En 


According to 


About 


After 


Among 


After 


Among 


Among 


As 


At 


Against 


At 


As to 


Away from 


At 


Away from 


Before 


By 


For 


Because of 


By 


Down from 


In 


By 


By means of 


For 


Into 


For 


Concerning 


From 


In order to 


From 


In 


Far from 


On account of 


Of 


Into 


Of 


Near to 


On account of 


In order to 


On account of 


To 


Out of 


In reference to 


Out of 


Towards 


On 


Near to 


Towards 


Unto 


Upon 


To 


With 


Upon 


Through 


Within. 



114 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

It is only those who have a theory to maintain 
even at the expense of the truth, that can find any 
support for immersion in the use of these preposi. 
tions. 

It makes just as good sense, and is just as literal 
rendering of the Greek to say, John baptized at the 
Jordan or with (the water of) the Jordan. They went 
down to the water, and came up from the water. 
And there is not the least absurdity in saying he 
sprinkled them at, near, by, or with the Jordan. For 
John baptized " with water,-' which implies that the 
water was applied to the subject, and not the subject 
to the water. But if these words were always trans- 
lated as immersionist claim they should be, it would 
involve the Scriptures in a thousand of the greatest 
absurdities imaginable. 

Let us illustrate this by substituting the so-called 
specific meaning of these terras in some of the places 
where they occur in the gospel. " Depart out of 
{apo) me ye workers of iniquity." (Mtt. vii, 23.) 
" Let him come down out of {aj)o) the cross." (Mtt. 
xxvii, 23.) Shake off the dust out of {a2)o) your feet." 
(Mtt. xxvii, 42.) "And the angel departed out of {apo) 
her." (Lk. ix, 5.) "And Jesus went away again 
beyond Jordan into [eis) the place where John at 
first baptized and there he abode. And many 
resorted to him." (Jno. x, 40.) The advocates of 
immersion contend that beyond Jordan was in 



is IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM? 116 

Jordan, and as it is stated that Christ went into the 
place where John baptized and abode there, he 
must have lived in the river, and the people resorted 
to him in the midst of its waters. 

Jno. XX. 1-8 : " Peter therefore went forth, and 
that other disciple, and came into (eis) the sepulcher. 
So they ran both together, and the other disciple 
did outrun Peter, and came first into (m) the sepul- 
cher. And he stooping down, saw the linen clothes 
lying; j^et went he not in. Then cometh Simon 
Peter following him, and went into (eis) the sepul- 
cher, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin 
that was about his head, not lying with the linen 
clothes. . . Then went in also the other disciple 
which came first into (eis) the sepulcher.^' In every 
instance where approach to the sepulcher is men- 
tioned m is employed, though there was no entrance 
made. If it means into, then Peter and John came 
into the sepulcher, John came into it, yet went not 
in, and finally Peter went into it. What a bundle 
of contradictions this makes of the passage. The 
facts are they both came towards, John came to, and 
Peter entered the sepulcher. And his entrance is 
expressed by the double use of the preposition, 
which is the usual method of expressing an entrance. 
The preposition is prefixed to the verb went, and 
then follows it ; and the literal rendering of it would 
be " into — went into {eiseWien eis) the sepulcher." 



116 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

Now, when this double use of the preposition does 
not occur, unless it is implied in something in the 
sentence besides the preposition, an entrance is not 
expressed. Tlie force of the proposition itself is not 
sufficient to express it. And nowhere is there a 
double use of one of these particles, where it speaks 
of going down into or coming up out of the water. 
And there is positively nothing in the context of 
these passages to indicate an entrance into the water. 
" He agreed with his laborers out of {elt) a penny a 
day." (Mtt. xx, 2.) " The baptism of John, whence 
was it, out of {eU) heaven, or out of {eli) men." (Mtt. 
xxi, 25.) "She saith unto him, grant that these my 
two sons may sit, the one out of {ek) thy right hand, 
and the other out of {ek) the left, in thy kingdom.' 
(Mtt. XX, 21.) "Swear not at all, neither in {en) 
heaven. . . Neither shalt thou swear in {eii) thy 
head." (Mtt. v, 31, 36.) "They that take the sword 
shall perish in {en) the sword." (Mtt. 26, 52.) "There 
was in the synagogue a man in {en) an unclean 
spirit." (Mk. i, 23.) " If the salt have lost his savour, 
in {en) what shall it be seasoned." (Lk. xiv, 34.) 

There is nothing, whatever, in the use of the 
Greek words that are employed in connection with 
the rite of baptism to prove that immersion was the 
mode practiced by the apostles. It might be a mode, 
but there is nothing to show that it was the mode. 
The lano^uao^e of the New Testament seems to favor 



IS IMMERSION THE MODE OF BAPTISM 



117 



sprinkling instead of immersion. If immersion is 
the mode, it must be proven by something besides 
the word haptizo and the Greels: particles. 




118 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 



CHAPEK IX. 

IS IMMEESION SCRIPTURE BAPTISM? 

" The ancient Church, it is admitted on all hands, practiced 
immersion. It did so, Roman, Greek and English historians 
being worthy of any credit. The places where baptism was 
anciently administered, being rivers, pools, baths, and places of 
much water, show that it was not sprinkling or pouring. They 
went down into the water, and came up outot it, etc. And John 
baptized where there were many waters or much water. And 
even Paul and Silas went out of the Phili ppian jail to baptize 
the jailer at night, rather than send for a cup of water! It is also 
alluded to and explained under the figure of a burial, and res- 
urrection as relating to the death, burial and resurrection of 
Jesus." 

Christian System, p. 57. 

If the fact can be established by any kind of 
evidence that even a single individual, of the many 
who were baptized in the primitive Church, was not 
immersed, this whole system of doctrines falls to the 
ground. For if any one was received into the Church 
without being immersed, it can not be a necessary 
condition to the pardon of sins. We do not have 
to adduce a single instance where a person was ever 
baptized by affusion. All that we need to do is to 
present a case where this rite could not have been 
administered by immersion. An impartial examina- 
tion of the circumstances under which the baptisms 
took place that are recorded in the Kew Testament 
will be necessary, in order to show that they do not 
favor the theory of immersion. 



IS IMMERSIOJT SCRIPTUKE BAPTISM? 119 

In the consideration of this subject, the first 
question that demands our attention is, What was 
the mode of John's baptism? If the mode the Bap- 
tist employed in the administration of this ordinance 
can be determined, it will not be difSicult to learn 
what the mode of Christian baptism was. He did 
not baptize with Christian baptism, but the mode of 
his baptism was the same as the apostles used. He 
w as a Jewish prophet, who lived under the law of 
Moses,and he would naturally use the Jewisb baptism. 
Indeed, it would have been impossible for him to have 
instituted a new mode of baptism without provoking 
the bitterest opposition from the Scribes and Phar- 
isees, who did not believe his testimony or acknow- 
ledge his authority. They were ever ready with their 
protests if the Saviour deviated in the least thing, 
even from the traditions of the elders, and it is not 
probable that they would have been less critical had 
John made any innovations on the Levitical law. 
If he immersed he must have changed the Mosaical 
rites, for none of the diverse baptisms of the law, 
which the priests administered, were by immersion. 
And it is not reasonable to suppose that the people 
would submit to such an innovation without a 
single protest. The abruptness with which he began 
his ministry clearly indicates that the people were so 
familiar with this ordinance that they were in no need 
of instruction on the subject. The legal washings 



120 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

enjoined by the Levitical law had been long known 
as baptisms. John was anointed and sent of God, 
not to abolish the Jewish rites, but to revive the 
languishing state of Judaism, and prepare the people 
for the immediate coming of the Messiah, l^ow, by 
what mode did this prophet apply the water of bap- 
tism to the vast multitudes that attended his minis- 
try? If the mode of his baptism was taken from 
the Levitical institutes, which is undoubted^ the 
case, he must have followed the example of Moses and 
^'Sprinkled all the people." It is evident from the 
language of the Baptist himself that this was the 
mode of his baptism. In immersion the subject is 
applied to the water, and is, consequently, baptized 
in water. But John says : "I indeed baptize you 
with water.'' Here en is used to denote the instru- 
mental cause, and therefore can not mean in water. 
And that this is the proper rendering of this passage 
is obvious from the clause, "He shall baptize you 
with the Holy Ghost." This preposition can not in 
the one case mean "in," and in the other have "with" 
as its signification. No person is ever applied to the 
Holy Spirit, but is baptized with the Spirit. 
There must have been an exact similarity between 
John's baptism and that of the Holy Spirit. And 
as spiritual baptism was with the Holy Ghost, so 
that of John's must have been with the water. 
The circumstances attending the Baptist's min- 



IS IMMEESION SCKIPTURE BAPTISM? 121 

istry make it wholly improbable that he immersed 
the people. One of the l^ew Testament writers in- 
forms ns that "the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the 
land of Judea, and all the regions round about 
Jordan" were baptized by John. And as the 
statement is found in the plain narrative, we 
are bound to understand the Evangelist to mean the 
greater part of the people. The number of the in- 
habitants of Palestine at this time has been estimated 
at from six to fifteen millions. Taking six millions 
as the basis of the population, we will suppose that 
John baptized one half of the entire population of 
the Holy Land. This is placing the estimation very 
low, but we can afford to be liberal with our oppo- 
nents. The duration of the Baptist's public ministry 
was not more than nine months, but we will place it 
at ten, as being the utmost limit to which it can be 
extended. If we estimate that he baptized ten hours 
each day during this length of time, not counting 
out the Sabbaths, in which, of course, he did not 
baptize, this would necessitate his baptizing ten 
thousand each day, one thousand each hour, and 
sixteen every minute, during all these months. The 
physical exertion that this would have required, if 
he baptized them by immersion, would have killed 
Samson himself in less than a month. John could 
not have possibly immersed two hundred thousand 
from the time he began his ministry until he was 



122 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

imprisoned. And surely no one will estimate the 
" all " that received his baptism at less than one 
thirtieth of the inhabitants of the land. 

The whole argument drawn from John's baptism 
in favor of immersion is from the locality in which 
the rite was administered. He baptized " in Jordan 
and in ^non, near to Salem, because there was 
much water there." The river Jordan has a rapid, 
impetuous current which renders it exceedingly 
dangerous, so that the best swimmer can not bathe 
in it without endangering his life. At the place 
where it is said that John baptized, the stream runs 
with the fury of a rapid, and is six or seven feet 
deep close to the shore. The impracticability of 
immersing in the Jordan was recognized by Lieut. 
Lynch of the United States N'avy, who surveyed it 
in ISttS. Speaking of the baptism of Christ, he says : 
" The impetuous river, in grateful homage, must have 
stayed its course and gently laved the body of its 
Lord." While it might be possible to immerse a 
person in the Jordan, yet it would not have been 
possible to immerse the multitudes in such a deep 
and swift stream. Dr. Carson saw the diflSculty of 
John administering this rite in the river. He says : 
"Instead of keeping John the Baptist ten hours 
every day in the water, I will not oblige him to go 
into the water at all ; he might have stood on the 
brink." The Jordan has two or three distinct bot- 



IS IMMERSION SCRIPTURE BAPTISM? 123 

toms or banks which overflow in the wet season, 
and all within these banks is in Jordan. And a 
person may stand on dry ground on one of these 
bottoms, and still be said to be in Jordan. The 
Baptist may have baptized on the bank of the river 
without being near the water. But the scriptural 
evidence shows plainly that he did not baptize in 
the river. For we read where Jesus withdrew from 
the people, and " went away again beyond Jordan 
into the place where John first baptized." And 
again, '' these things were done in Bethbara, beyond 
Jordan, where John was baptizing." It is also 
stated, in another place, that he baptized " in the 
wilderness." 'Now, unless Bethbara and the wilder- 
ness were in the river, and beyond Jordan is made 
to mean in Jordan, these passages prove conclusively 
that he did not baptize in the river. And if he did 
not baptize in the river, the mode of his baptism 
was not immersion. 

The phrase "much water" is all that seems to 
have any force in the statement that John baptized 
in ^non. The question is asked, " Why did he bap- 
tize where there was ' much water,' if it was not for 
the purpose of immersion?" The word ^non is 
derived from a word that means well, or fountain, 
and the phrase ^6»^^« hudata, "much water," should 
be translated " many waters." How much logical 
force is there in the argument drawn from the use of 



124 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

the phrase " much water," when it is analyzed ? It 
all amounts to this : John left the Jordan, the largest 
river in Palestine, which affords more water than all 
the streams of the country united together, and 
came to this place that he might be supplied with 
the water of a nameless brook or fountain in which 
to immerse the multitudes that attended his minis- 
try. It could not, then, have been his object in 
going to this place to procure the "much water" for 
the purpose of immersion. The great number that 
came to hear his message would need considerable 
water for their own use. And as this was a place 
where there w^ere several springs or a small stream, 
it suggests the idea that he removed his baptismal 
statioD here because it would furnish abundant sup- 
ply of pure water for the use of the people. It 
must have been the quality of the water, therefore, 
and not the quantity, that led to his removal from 
Bethbara. 

Let us now consider the first example of Christian 
baptism that occurred under the administration of 
the apostles. It was the baptism of the three thou- 
sand in the city of Jerusalem on the day of Pente- 
cost. It is said that " They that gladly received 
his word were baptized, and the same day there 
were added unto them about three thousand souls." 
Is there any evidence that these persons were 
immersed ? There is certainly not the least proof of 



IS IMMERSION SCRIPTURE BAPTISM? 125 

it, but the circumstances of the case clearly indicate 
some otlier mode. The apostles and their converts 
were all Jews, and were all familiar with the relig- 
ious use of water under the law, hence there was no 
need of any instruction on the design or mode of 
baptism being given. And as none of the diverse 
baptisms of their law were by immersion, the converts 
would naturally expect baptism by affusion. And 
the time was entirely too short to immerse this mul- 
titude. It was nine o'clock when preaching began ; 
and it is not probable that the sermon was ended, 
the inquiries made, the counsels given, and the true 
converts selected and examined before noon. They 
could not have well begun to baptize before one 
o'clock, and the Jewish day ends at six. This would 
leave only five hours, entirely too short a time in 
which to handle each person separately, as in immer- 
sion. It becomes still less probable when we con- 
sider that the people were not expecting to receive 
this rite, and must have been wholly unprepared for 
it with the necessary changes of raiment. The 
assumption that the seventy aided the apostles 
is unfounded, for they were only commissioned 
for a special purpose, and for a short time. 
There is no evidence that they were present, 
and if they were there, it only increases the diffi- 
culty of finding suitable places in which to 
immerse so many people. There could not be found 



126 CAMPBELLISM KEVEALED. 

in Jerusalem twelve distinct places for the purpose 
of immersion, much less eighty-two of them. The 
Jordan was twenty miles away, and the brook Kid ron 
was always dry at this season of the year. We are 
informed that the pools ^vere used, but this is only 
an attempt to escape the difficulty in which the 
theory of immersion involves them. The two pools, 
Bethesda and Siloam, were in this vicinity, but neither 
of them was available. The first belonged to the 
temple, and it is not likely that the priests Avere so 
accommodating as to allow the apostles to immerse 
three thousand converts to the new religion in it. 
The pool of Siloam, which was about a mile distance, 
was used for family purposes, and there is no proba- 
bilit}^ that the people would permit it to be used for 
the purpose of immersion. There is nothing to show 
in the narrative that they moved from the place 
w^here they w^ere standing. The disciples had just 
been baptized with the Holy Ghost, which was poured 
upon them in fulfillment to Joel's prophecy. And 
it is not likely that immediately after they had all 
been baptized with the Spirit by affusion, that they 
would immerse the people. The probabilities are 
all against the supposition that the three thousand 
were immersed, while everything is favorable to 
their being baptized by affusion. But the burden of 
proof rests upon those who claim that they were im- 
mersed, both in resrard to the time and the facilities. 



IS IMMERSION SCRIPTURE BAPTISM? 1^7 

The next example is that of the Ethiopian eunuch, 
recorded in the eighth chapter of Acts. The baptism 
took place on the road to Gaza, in a place that is 
called a " desert. " There is no running stream in 
this region large enough to answer the purpose of 
immersion. Palestine does not abound in rivers, 
and wherever there is a small stream it is called a 
river. If there had been such a stream on this road 
it would have been noted as a river. The account 
reads : " They came to a certain water, " a more 
correct rendering of ti liudor would be " some," or 
" a little water. " There is nothing said as to whether 
it was a well, fountain, cistern, brook, or pool. 
It had no name, and it seems to have surprised the 
eunuch to come upon water in this out-of-the-way 
place. For he exclaims, idoib hudor, behold water, as 
though the sight of it was wholly unexpected. He 
did not say behold a river or a fountain, but simply 
" behold water." The fact appears that there was 
some water here, but nothing is said of its depth or 
quantity. All the evidence there is of an immer- 
sion in this place is the statement : " They went down 
both into the water. . . and when they were come 
up out of the water." The going down affords no proof 
of immersion, for they both went "down." The going 
into the water is no evidence of immersion, for they 
both went "into the water." Being in water and 
under water are two very different things. To in- 



128 CAMPBELLISM EEYEALED. 

sist that the phrase " went down both into the water " 
means that the eunuch was immersed proves too much, 
for it proves that Philip was also immersed. They 
may have, as we have already seen, only gone down 
to the water, and come up from the water. But if 
we admit that they went into the water for the pur- 
pose of baptizing the eunuch, it does not throw any 
light on the mode that was employed, for he could 
have sprinkled him as easily as to have immersed him. 
The argument reverts to the meaning of the word hap- 
tizo but it does not settle the controvers}^ for it means 
to sprinkle or pour as well as to immerse. It is beg- 
ging the question to say the eunuch was baptized; 
haptizo means immerse; therefore he was immersed. 
We could prove that he was sprinkled by this method 
of reasoning, and it would be just as sound a con- 
clusion as the other. But it has never been neces- 
sary for us to use any such arguments to sustain 
baptism by affusion. 

Is there anything in the passage of Scripture, which 
Philip expounded to the eunuch, that could have 
directed his mind to the subject of baptism ? This 
clause occurs in the passage which he was reading 
when Philip overtook him, '' So shall he sprinkle many 
nations. " The evangelist could not have expounded 
this prophetic description of the Messiah without ex- 
plaining this clause. The sprinkling represents the 
moral cleansing of which baptism is the outward 



IS M-MERSrOX SCRIPTURE BAPTISM? 129 

sign. And Philip, in all probability was just giving 
an explanation of these words when the eunuch 
looked up antl saw the water by the roadside, and 
exclaimed: "Behold, water; what doth hinder me 
to be baptized ? " Nowhere in the Scriptures does it 
say : " So shall he immerse many nations. " And it 
is not at all probable that after he had explained to 
the eunuch this spiritual cleansing under the figure 
of sprinkling, that he would then immerse him, Mr. 
Campbell tries hard to break the force of the argu- 
ment from this passage by endeavoring to show that 
it should read: " So shall he astonish manj^ nations. " 
The reason he does this is because it furnishes such 
strong presumptive evidence against the hypothesis 
of immersion. But after a careful examination of 
all the texts in which the Hebrew word translated 
sprinkle occurs, Dr. Barnes, than whom there is no 
better authority, says : " In every instance it means 
to sprinkle. '' 

The baptism of Saul of Tarsus comes next in order. 
" And he received his sight forthwith and arose and 
was baptized. " (Acts ix, 18.) He was baptized in 
the city of Damascus, in the house of Judas, while 
in a standmg posture. After he was brought to the 
city, he continued three days and nights without 
eating or drinking. This long fast with bis 
grief and anxiety no doubt had greatly weakened 
him. When Ananias came he must have found 



130 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

him prostrate with fasting and grief, and laying 
his hands upon his head, he delivered his message. 
And immediately the scales fell from his ej^es, 
forthwith he received his sight, then he stood upon 
his feet, and was baptized. The account forbids the 
idea that he left the house. He w^as naturally 
greatl}^ weakened by his long abstinence from 
food ; but after his baptism, he partook of food and 
was strengthened. He evidently received refresh- 
ments before he left the house. For in the whole 
narrative w^here a person passes from one place to 
another, it is expressly stated. "As he journeyed, 
he came near Damascus," when struck down, "the 
Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city;" 
and " they led him by the hand, and brought him 
into Damascus." " And the Lord said unto him, 
Arise and go — And Ananias went his w^a}^, and 
entered into the house." And there is nothing, 
whatever, to indicate that they left the house in 
search of Avater. The language signifies that the 
baptism took place immediately after the scales fell, 
and he received his sight. There are two facts 
that preclude the idea of immersion, in the first 
place he was in the house, and in the second he 
was standing on his feet. Here is a case where un- 
questionably the mode of baptism was not immer- 
sion. 

In Acts X, 47-48, is given an account of the bap- 



IS IMMERSION SCRIPTURE BAPTISM? 131 

tism of Cornelius and his friends. Peter asks : " Can 
any man forbid water, that these should not be bap- 
tized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well 
as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized 
in the name of the Lord." " Can any man forbid 
water, " that is, in plain English, Can any one 
forbid that water should be brougnt. This question 
was addressed to those of the circumcision, who had 
come with him from Joppa, whose concurrence 
he desired. What the apostle wished to know was 
whether they had any objections to these uncir- 
cumcised Gentiles being baptized with water, as God 
had put no difference between them and the Jews, 
baptizing them both alike with the Holy Ghost. 
And as there was no objection raised he commanded 
them to be baptized. There is not the least 
shadow of doubt that this all took place in the 
house. If it had been the intention to take them 
from the house to the river or pool, he would have 
said, can any man forbid these Gentile concerts 
from going to the water. But he called for the 
water to be brought, and not that the people should 
be taken to the water. As he referred to the pos- 
sible prohibition of the water he must have had the 
water in view, and not the conveyance of the people 
to it. These persons had just been baptized with 
the Holy Spirit which fell on them. The real and 
the symbolical baptisms are here placed in a most 



132 CAMPBELLISM KEVEALED. 

striking parallel. They were baptized with the 
Spirit, and it is not likely that the apostle, in the 
face of this fact, would baptize them in any other 
way, than by the application of the water to them, 
or with water. This is another example where un- 
doubtedly the mode was not immersion, but where 
all the circumstances go to show that it must have 
been affusion. 

We next notice the baptism of the jailer and his 
family, which is recorded in the sixteenth chapter of 
Acts. Paul and Silas were imprisoned for preach- 
ing the gospel, and the jailer having received the 
charge to keep them safely, placed them in the in- 
ner prison. And at midnight there was an earth- 
quake that broke open the doors of the prison. The 
jailer, supposing that the prisoners had all escaped, 
was about to take his own life, when Paul cried to 
him to do himself no harm that they were all there. 
And he sprang into the inner prison, and brought 
the apostle and his companion into the outer prison, 
where they preached the word of the Lord to him 
and his family. He brought some water to wash their 
stripes, and, no doubt, that he and his houshold were 
baptized with a part of this same water. They did 
not leave the prison to baptize the jailer. For he 
was a sworn officer, and could not have taken them 
out of the jail except at the risk of his life. It 
is evident from the language of the apostle that 



IS IMMERSION SCRIPTURE BAPTISM? 133 

they did not go out of the prison. The magistrates 
sent word privately to let them go : " But Paul said 
unto them, They have beaten us openly, uncon- 
demned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison ; 
and now do they thrust us out privily ? nay verily; 
but let them come themselves and fetch us out." 
Now, if they were out at midnight it must have been 
privily, the very thing that Paul objects to doing. 
Such language is not in harmony with the assump- 
tion that all of them, the jailer, his family, and the 
two prisoners, were out of the prison in the middle 
of the night, contrary to the law, and in jeopardy of 
the jailer's life, wandering through the streets 
of the city in search of a suitable place to im- 
merse. If they were out of the jail that night the 
apostle must have lied about it to the magistrates, 
and revealed himself to his late converts as a hypo- 
crite. Such a supposition charges Paul with a du- 
plicity unworthy the character of an apostle, and 
entirely repugnant to the principals of the gospel. 
He did not leave the prison during the night, there- 
fore the jailer and his family were baptized in the 
house, and consequently were not immersed. 

Romans vi, 3-4, is adduced as evidence that im- 
mersion is the true mode of baptism : " Know ye 
not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ were baptized into his death. Therefore we 
are buried with him by baptism into death. " The 



134 CAMPBELLISM EEYEALED. 

claim that baptism represents the death, burial and 
resurrection of Christ is without Scripture proof, 
and is only an effort to make the theory of immer- 
sion appear more plausible. The Lord's Supper sym- 
boKzes the death of Christ and it is not reasonable 
to suppose that two sacraments were instituted with 
the same import. There was no more religious sig- 
nification in the burial of the Saviour, than there was 
in that of Lazarus or any other person. But if the 
assumption were true, there is no more resemblance 
between the momentary dipping of a person in water, 
and the burial of Christ in the sepulcher, than there 
is between day and night. This passage has no ref- 
erence to water baptism, whatever. This is shown 
from the fact that the same idea is conveyed by 
three different figures. ''Buried by baptism into 
death," "planted together in the likeness of his 
death," and "the old man is crucified with him." 
This passage must be interpreted in either a literal 
or in a spiritual sense, and not partly in a spiritual 
and partly in a literal sense. Nothing but the 
most flagrant inconsistency can possibly ascribe a 
meaning to the word baptize in one clause, that it 
does not have in the other and contrasted clause. If 
the burial is literal, then the planting, crucifixion, and 
death are literal also. But we can not believe that the 
persons of whom Paul speaks were literally planted, 
crucified, and dead. Hence the burial which is by 



IS IMMERSION SCRIPTUEE BAPTISM ? 135 

baptism must be aspiritual burial into a spiritual death. 
Mr. Campbell's American apostle, Prof. Stewart, 
says in his comment on this passage : "Indeed, what 
else but a moral burjnng can be meant, when the 
apostle goes on to say, 'we are buried with him ( not 
by baptism only but) by baptism into death.' Of 
course, it will not be contended that a literal, physi- 
cal burying is here meant, but only a moral one." If 
we are buried by baptism then the baptism does the 
burjang, it is the burier, and not the burial as immer- 
sionists claim. It is contrary to common sense to 
say that baptism is the burial and the burier at the 
same tune. It is equivalent to sa3^ing that the sex- 
ton, who buries the dead, is both a burial and a bur- 
ier at the same time. The burial is in the present 
tense, "we are buried by baptism into death," not 
were buried. It is impossible for a person to be 
buried and exhumed at the same time ; therefore im- 
mersion, which is only momentary, does not fitly 
represent that state to which the apostle refers. 
This Scripture has no reference, either to water bap- 
tism, or its mode of administration. The baptism is 
spiritual by which the old man of sin is crucified, 
dead, and put off, and the new man is put on renewed 
in righteousness. 

There is no historical proof that in the first cen- 
turies of the Christian era, baptism was administered 
exclusively by immersion. We admit that after the 



136 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

Church became corrupt, that immersion with many- 
other absurdities was practiced ; but not in the same 
manner it is at present. "The ancient Cliristians, 
when they were baptized by immersion, were all 
baptized naked, whether they were men, women 
or children. They thought it better represented the 
putting off of the old man, and also the nakedness of 
Christ on the cross ; moreover, as baptism is a wash- 
ing, they judged it should be the washing of the 
body, not of the clothes." ^ Mr. Campbell appeals 
to the practice of the early Church ; but why did he 
not insist on the admmistration of this rite with all 
of the accompanying ceremonies employed by these 
early Christians? There is as much evidence from 
history for the practice of baptizing naked, as there 
is that immersion alone is baptism. But the ques- 
tion as to the mode of baptism employed in the 
primitive Church is forever settled by the represent- 
ations of this rite found in the catacombs of Rome. 
The catacombs were used for the burial of the dead, 
and, in the time of persecution, for a place of refuge 
by the Christians. They were in use in the time of 
the apostles, some of whom, no doubt, were buried 
in them. And it was the custom of these Christians 
to paint or carve upon the walls of their tombs rep- 
resentations of the various customs and rites of the 
Church then in vogue. But out of about sixteen ex- 
amples of the rite of baptism there is not a single 

*Wall. 



IS IMMERSION SCRIPTURE BAPTISM ? 137 

instance where the mode is represented by immersion. 
Baptismal founts have been found in a good state of 
preservation, that have unquestionably been used in 
the administration of this ordinance by sprinkling ; 
but there is nothing whatever to show that they ever 
practiced any other mode. Now, if immersion had 
been the mode employed in the primitive Church, is 
it reasonable to suppose, that these Roman Christians 
would have invariably pictured the mode by affusion ? 
There is no person of any intelligence, unless so 
biased that he will not see the truth, that will form 
any such an opinion. 

We have seen, then, that the places where baptisms 
were anciently performed were the populous cities 
and the barren wilderness, the private houses and 
the public jail, the crowded streets and the desert 
road-side, all of which go to show that it was not by 
immersion. We find that the rite was not performed 
in the Jordan, but beyond it. And that a place was 
sought for a baptismal station where there were some 
springs of pure water, in order to supply the people 
with drinking water, and not a place of "much 
water" for the purpose of immersion. We learn 
that baptism was not alluded to, and explained un- 
der the figure of a death, burial, and resurrection. 
And that history reveals the fact that the ancient 
Church did not practice immersion. Immersion, 
therefore, cannot be the scriptural mode of baptism. 



138 



CAMPBELLIS.M REVEALED. 



Hence, we conclude that all the doctrines which are 
based upon the assumption that it is the mode of 
baptism are necessarily false. 




THE SPIKIT OK THE WOKD WHICH? 139 



CHAPTEK X. 

THE SPIRIT OR THE WOED WHICH ? 

"Now we caa not separate the Spirit and word of God, and 
ascribe so much power to the one and so much to the other; 
for so did not the apostles. Whatever the word does, the Spirit 
does; and whatever the Spirit does in the work of converting 
men, the word does. We neither believe nor teach abstract 
Spirit nor abstract word, but word and Spirit, Spirit and word, 
. . . The Master knew that to wait for health before we went to 
the physiciaa ; to seek for warmth before we approach the fire; 
to wait till we ceased to be hungry before we approached the 
table, was not reasonable. And therefore he never asked, as he 
never expected, any one to feel like a Christian before he was 
immersed and began to live like a Christian." 

Christian System, pp. 64, 243. 

Consistency compelled the author of Campbellism 
to deny any direct operation of the Holy Spirit 
upon the heart, either before or after conversion. 
For had it been granted that the Spirit did witness 
to the adoption of the sinner into the family of God, 
and a person believed, reformed and was immersed, 
and he did not receive this witness, it would either 
prove that immersion was not " the act of turning to 
God," or it would necessitate the repetition of this 
act until he did receive the evidence of his accept- 
ance. It would be equally disastrous to the doctrine 
of salvation by water to admit the operation of the 
Spirit in either case. And there would be no way 



140 CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

left to refute the claim of those who testify that 
they have received the witness of the Spirit without 
water baptism. It became necessary, therefore, in 
order that this system might be consistent with 
itself and at the same time invalidate all other 
claims, to teach that the Holy Ghost does not oper- 
ate directly or immediately upon the heart of either 
saint or sinner. 

This whole system is out of harmony with the 
divine plan of redemption and salvation ; for it is 
clearly set forth in the Bible that the Holy Trinity 
is engaged in bringing the world back to righteous- 
ness. It reveals the fact that the Father provided 
the plan and sent the Son into the world to die in 
our stead ; and that the Father and the Son have 
sent the Holy Spirit to carry on and complete the 
work of salvation. The claim that the Spirit and the 
Word are the same — there being neither abstract 
Spirit nor abstract Word — is virtually a denit.! of the 
personality and divinity of the third person of the 
God-head. If it does not do this, language conveys no 
meaning. At least it so limits God's power that he 
can not manifest himself in the world unless aided by 
men in the distribution of the Scriptures. When we 
examine the statement tiiat there is neither abstract 
Spirit nor abstractWord,in the light of revealed truth, 
we are led to believe that this theory was evolved 
for the purpose of explaining away those texts 



THE SPIKIT OR THE WORD WHICH? 141 

that speak of the work of the Spirit; but we have 
the relation that the Spirit and the Word sustain to 
each other defined in the Word itself. In giving the 
Christian instruction how to equip himself for con- 
flict against evil, Paul says : " Take the helmet of 
salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the 
word of God. (Eph. vi, 17.) The Word is not the 
Spirit but the sword of the Spirit. It is just as 
reasonable to say that we can not separate a soldier 
and his sword, and ascribe so much power to the 
one. and so mach to the other, as it is to declare that 
we can not distinguish between the Spirit and the 
Word. Has the soldier no power to act indepen- 
dent of his sword ? This weapon of warfare is 
powerless of itself, and is effective only when 
wielded by the arm of the soldier. Likewise the 
Word is powerless of itself, and its teachings' are 
only made effective, when enforced by the Holy 
Spirit. The Spirit follows up the Word, and causes 
it to produce conviction in the heart of the sinner. 
He accompanies it, when read by the saint, and 
makes it a comfort to him. But it is nonsense to 
say that the Spirit can not act independent of the 
Word. Unless we are to understand that a soldier 
and his sword are one, we must believe that the 
Spirit and the Word are separate and distinct from 
each other. 
If the Spirit and the Word are concrete, then, all 



142 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

of the power and effectiveness that the Word now 
has must have been given it when the holy men of 
old were moved by divine inspiration to w^rite it. 
And the Holy Spirit since that time has been no 
more in the Word, than a deceased writer is now in 
a letter that he may have written. And whatever 
conviction the sinner is made to feel comes from the 
Word alone, and whatever joy the saint receives is 
from reading the promises the Word contains, which 
he reasons he enjoys because it says they are for 
him. And if the literal Word is the Spirit, strictly 
speaking, we do not at the present time have the 
Spirit of God. For the original Scriptures w^ere 
written in manuscript form in the Hebrew and 
Greek languages, and these manuscripts are no 
longer in existence. They wore out by constant 
use, and we only have the copies that were made 
from them. And if we regard the Bible when 
printed in the original language as inspired, only 
those who can read these dead tongues can have 
access to the Spirit of God. The English Bible is 
not inspired, it is nothing more than a translation 
of the Word from these dead languages. And unless 
the Holy Spirit does accompany the Word by his 
personal presence, independent of the naked words 
we are without the Spirit. But the inspired Word 
is no more the Spirit of God than the writmgs of a 
man are his spirit. 



THE SPIRIT OR THE WORD — WHICH? 143 

If the Holy Spirit does not impress himself upon 
the heart aside from the Word of truth, it can only 
be by meditation on the Word and by a process of 
deductive reasoning, that the Christian may expe- 
rience peace or joy. It is impossible for him to 
know that he is saved, for all the knowledge he can 
have of his acceptance with God is that he believes 
that he understands the gospel plan of salvation, 
and accordmg to his fallible interpretation of the 
teachings of the Word, he has complied with its 
requirements. According to this system, a person 
is saved by a syllogism. Immersion is for the re- 
mission of sins ; I have been immersed ; and, there- 
fore, I am saved. All the assurance he has is the 
result of this subjective mental process of reasoning. 
The evidence of his acceptance with God is not 
wrought in him by a personal communication to the 
soul, but is the outcome of his obedience to what he 
thinks the Word requires of him. He believes that 
he has fulfilled all the necessary conditions to salva- 
tion ; and, therefore, that he has a perfect right to 
claim that he is in a saved state. It is a mere 
deduction from the fact that he supposes he has 
obeyed the commandments of Christ. If asked to 
give a reason for the hope that is in him, all he can 
say is, "I have believed and been immersed." The 
change that takes place in the sinner's feelings ^^hen 
he is immersed is produced by his own efforts al- 



144: CAMPBELLISM KEVEALED. 

together, and all the source of joy and peace he has 
is the approval of his own conscience for doing what 
he supposes to be right. The act of pardon takes 
place in the divine mind alone, at the moment the 
sinner is immersed, and the only evidence that he 
has of his pardon is that he has obeyed the com- 
mandment he thinks was given, in order that he 
might obtain the forgiveness of his sins. This sys- 
tem is as cold and cheerless as the grave. There is 
no direct witness of the Spirit in the whole process. 
Suppose a person falls from grace, the possibility of 
which is not denied, what evidence can he have of 
his reinstatement ? He can not look back to his im- 
mersion, for that was for the remission of his past 
sins. If he prays for forgiveness, as these teachers 
say that a citizen of the kingdom has a right to do, 
it will bring him no sense of his reconciliation with 
God, unless he predicates it upon the fact that his 
prayer was very loud and long that his sins might 
be pardoned. 

Mr. Campbell says : "As all the influence which 
my spirit has exerted upon other spirits, at home or 
abroad, has been the stipulated signs of ideas, of 
spiritual operations by my written or spoken word ; 
so believe I, that all the influence of God's good 
Spirit, now felt in the way of conviction or con- 
solation, in the four quarters of the globe, is by the 
Word written, read and heard, which is called the 



THE SPIRIT OE THE WORD WHICH? 145 

living oracles." - There certainly is nothing in the 
constitution of the mind that would render it impos- 
sible for God to impress us directly through it without 
the aid of words as the signs of ideas. Mr. Camp- 
bell may have believed that all the influence he 
exerted over others was by his written or spoken 
words, but his believing it does not make it so. If 
he had not exerted an influence beyond the bare 
language he employed in speaking and writing, he 
never could have been the founder of this system of 
faith that bears his name. If it is true that all the 
moral power we have over our fellow men is the 
direct result of the words we employ, then all that 
can use equally good language have the same in_ 
fluence. But we know that this is not the case, for 
a man's character has much to do with his influence. 
Take a man in whom the people have no confidence, 
and no matter how eloquent he may be, all that he 
says has no effect upon them. But let another per- 
son speak, in whose integrity the people have con- 
fidence, and, notwithstanding the fact that his lan- 
guage may be defective, what he says will do those 
that hear him great good. Besides this, there is 
something that we call in a speaker a commanding 
presence, and if he does not possess this, he can not 
have the influence over an audience that another 
person can who does have this power. There is also 

* " Milennial Harbinger," Vol. VI, p. 356. 



146 CAMPBELLIS:\I EEVEALED. 

something that we call personal magnetism. And 
the one who possesses this something in a high 
degree will sway the people with his will, but the 
person who has little magnetism about him, though 
he uses the best of language, will have scarcely any 
influence over those that hear him. Now in all 
these cases there is an influence exerted which is 
distinct from the stipulated signs of ideas employed, 
and is more potent in its effect than the outward 
symbols that are used to convey the thought to the 
minds of others, and if it is possible for a man to 
exert such an influence over the minds of others, 
independent of the naked words he employs, can not 
the Holy Spirit operate upon the heart without the 
help of the Word of truth ? Shall we limit the 
power of the Almighty, and ascribe less to him than 
toman? Surely if man can exercise such a power 
as this, distinct from his words, God can manifest 
himself to us without the intervention of his 
written Word. If this is not true, then Satan exer- 
cises a greater influence for evil in the world than 
God can possibly exercise for good ; for he can tempt 
men to commit sin, while God can not influence them 
to do right unless he can secure some one to go to 
them with the Bible. 

According to the plain and unmistakable teaching 
of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit reproves the sin- 
ner, witnesses to his adoption, and is an abiding 



THE SPIRIT OR THE WORD WHICH ? 147 

presence in the heart of the saint. In this system 
of doctrines there is no recognition of any of these 
offices of the Spirit. And that the Spirit in any 
way, aside from the word, convinces of sin is bit- 
terly antagonized. The judgment is simply con- 
vinced by hearing the Word read or expounded. But 
the Spirit itself quickens the conscience of the sin- 
ner, reveals to him his lost condition, and presses 
upon him the obligation he is under to serve God. 
But it is not claimed that this entirely sets aside 
every other agency. It is not without a knowledge 
of the truth ; it is not without some intellectual con- 
viction ; and it is not without some degree of faith. 
But men may know the truth, be convinced of their 
duty, and believe that Christ was the Son of God ; 
yet in addition to this they need the direct influence 
of the Spirit to cause them to act. Before there 
was any written "Word the Holy Spirit is represented 
as striving with men to bring them to repentance. 
The Lord declares unto the antediluvians : " My Spirit 
shall not always strive with man." This does not 
mean that l^oah should not alwaj^s preach to them, 
for they certainly knew that he would die, therefore 
such a declaration would be meaningless. And, 
under the law, the wicked are spoken of as grieving 
and resisting the Spirit. How would it be possible for 
them to do this unless the Spirit strove with them ? 
How could they grieve the Word ? When David, 



148 CAMPBELLISM EEYEALED. 

who had turned from the path of rectitude, was led 
to repentance, he prayed to God : " Take not thy 
Holy Spirit from me." Was he afraid that he would 
be deprived of the written Word ? Certainly not ; it 
was the reproving Spirit that he did not want taken 
from him, for he realized that his case would be hope- 
less if the Spirit ceased to strive with him. That 
he did not have the Holy Spirit in any other sense 
is evident, for he iramediatel}^ cries : " Restore unto 
me the joy of salvation and uphold rae with thy free 
Spirit.^' That the Spirit convinces of sin is clearly 
set forth in the discourses of the Lord and the writ- 
ings of the apostles. Christ tells his disciples that 
when the Holy Spirit comes, " He will reprove the 
world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judg- 
ment." (John xvi, 8.). The operation of the Spirit, 
as here indicated, can not be restricted to the 
Church. And this passage can not mean that the 
Spirit will reprove the world of sin by the Word 
only. The Saviour, in explaining to his disciples 
the promised Comforter that should be sent when 
he goes away, speaks of him as " the Spirit of 
truth " and " the Holy Ghost ; " but not once as " the 
Word of truth " or " the Word of God." Hence we 
must understand that the Spirit convinces the wicked 
of sin by direct operation upon their consciences. If 
he was to come to the followers of Christ as an 
abiding presence, which is undoubtedly the case, 



THE SPIRIT OR THE WORD WHICH ? 149 

then he comes to the world directly and reproves it 
of sin, and not simply as the written Word is read or 
heard expounded. 

Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews : " No man can 
come to me except the Father draw him." (John 
vi, 44.) Now the question is, how does the Father 
draw men to Christ ? Is it by the hearing of the 
Word alone, or is it by the immediate influence of 
the Spirit upon the heart ? It is by the direct oper- 
ation of the Holy Spirit ; and we have in the case 
of Lydia a practical illustration of this immediate 
influence, aside from the spoken Word, in drawing 
the sinner to the Saviour. It is said of her : " Whose 
heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the 
things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts xvi. 14.) 
The things spoken by the apostle were the teachings 
of the gospel, and these things are all the followers 
of Campbell claim are necessary to convince men's 
judgments and bring them to repentance. But it is 
said here that another agency was brought to bear 
on this woman's heart. The Lord opened her heart 
and influenced her to attend to these things. Could 
the direct influence of the Holy Spirit in convicting 
and drawing the sinner to the Cross be more clearly 
stated than it is in this case ? 

Paul did not ascribe the success that attended his 
ministry to his own preaching of the Word. He 
had the power to work miracles and had great abil- 



150 CAMPBELLISM EEYEALED. 

ity in presenting the Word of truth, yet he rebukes 
the persons who were inclined to give him the praise 
for their conversion. He says: "Paul may plant, 
Apollos may water ; but it is God that giveth the 
increase." These ministers planted and watered by 
preaching the Word, but God alone made their 
preaching effective by the influence of the Holy 
Spirit, who enforced the Word, causing it to produce 
conviction in the hearts of their hearers. All of 
their efforts would have been unavailing without 
this direct operation of the Spirit upon the minds of 
the people. The Spirit acted in conjunction with 
the Word, reproving them of sin and arousing them 
to action. The Word itself can not make a saving 
impression on the unsaved, for of itself it is power- 
less. It is only when it is attended and enforced by 
the Holy Spirit that sinners are sincerely awakened 
and are led to seek salva):ion. But in the work of 
converting men the office of the Spirit and that of 
the Word is not the same. Though the Spirit accom- 
panies the Word and makes it effective, yet what the 
Word does the Spirit does not do, and what the 
Spirit does the Word does not do. 

It is asserted by these teachers that the Spirit 
can not witness to the acceptance of the person 
whose sins are pardoned, because it is impossible to 
receive impressions except through the medium of the 
senses. And as the eve can not see nor the ear hear 



THE SPIRIT OR THE WOED WHICH? 151 

the influence that the Spirit is said to exercise upon 
the heart in witnessing to the divine acceptance of 
the saved, therefore such a thing is an absurdity. 
But that which we learn through an agent is never 
as real to us as what we see or hear ourselves. 
We may read or hear the description of a beautiful 
landscape or a rare work of art, and we can form 
only a faint conception of the reality. But when we 
look upon them ourselves, w^e can have a full realiza- 
tion of their beauty. The senses are merely the 
agents through which we obtain knowledge of the 
material world. And that which comes to us through 
the senses is never as real to us as that which is re- 
vealed directly to us without the aid of these agents. 
All the evidence a person can have of his acceptance 
with God, according to this system, is by the testi- 
mony of the senses ; therefore he can have no cer- 
tain knowledge that his sins are pardoned. He may 
believe that he is saved at the time, but there will 
arise in his mind afterwards, doubts of his accep. 
tance. And the only way that he can satisfy him- 
self is by reasoning that he has complied with the 
requirements of the gospel, as his senses of sight and 
hearing have revealed them to him, and since he feels 
that as he has obeyed these, he must be saved. But 
God does not leave the truly converted soul in any 
doubt as to the fact of his conversion, for the Holy 
Spirit comes directly to the heart and bears witness 



152 CAMPBELLISM KEVEALED. 

to his divine acceptance. And this is something 
that is not reasoned out, or comes to the mind simply 
through the agency of the senses, but is the result 
of the direct operation of the Spirit upon our spirits. 
And we can know this better than the things that 
we see or hear in the material world, for this knowl- 
edge has come to us without the aid of an agent. 
There is certainly nothing unreasonable in the wit- 
ness of the Holy Spirit to our spirits, that we have 
been adopted into the family of God; for the Being 
who made us is pure Spirit, and it must be in his 
power to commune with and have immediate access 
to our spirits. If this is not the case, it is impossible 
for us to worship God in " spirit and in truth" as it 
is said in the Word that he seeks such to worship 
him as come in this way. He has made the con- 
science so that when we are guilty of sin it condemns 
us ; and there is no reason why he can not im- 
press the conscience with a sense of peace and joy, 
when he has pardoned our sins. And this is what is 
said in the Bible does take place '' For as many as 
are led by the Spirit of God they are the sons of 
God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage, 
again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of 
adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father. The Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the 
children of God. " (Rom. viii, 14-16.) 

That all of God's people should receive the wit- 



THE SPIRIT OR THE WORD WHICH ? 153 

ness of the Spirit was foretold by the prophets : 
"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will 
pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and 
your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall 
dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. " 
(Joel ii, 28.) John declared to the multitude that 
attended his ministry : " I indeed baptize you with 
water ; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." 
Jesus promised his disciples that these prophecies 
should be fulfilled : " For John truly baptized you 
with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost not many days hence." (Acts i, 5.) The 
promise was that the Spirit should be poured out on 
all flesh, and not upon the apostles, and a few Jews 
and Gentiles, for the purpose of working miracles. 
This baptism was received by the one hundred and 
twenty, and afterwards by the three thousand on the 
day of Pentecost. In the case of Cornelius and his 
family, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is spoken of 
as the witness of their adoption : " And God which 
knoweth the hearts bear them witness giving them 
the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us." (Acts xv, 
8.) The gift of the Spirit to these Gentiles was the 
same that was poured out upon the apostles at the 
beginning, and was given for the same purpose, 
namely, as the seal of God's love and approval. 
That this spiritual baptism is the privilege of all 
believers is put beyond a peradventure, if the 



154 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

language of inspiration can be given credit ; for it is 
so frequently mentioned and so often repeated that 
it becomes all but monotonous. In I. Cor. xii, 13, 
we read : " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into 
one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether 
we be bond or free, and have all been made to drink 
into one Spirit." This passage places the fact beyond 
adoubt,that it is the privilege of the believers of all 
ages to receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, by 
which they are made members of the Church of Christ. 
It settles forever the controversy whether the baptism 
was only bestowed upon a few, in order to perform 
miracles, by proving that it Avas given to all believers. 
And this witness of the Spirit was not predicated 
upon water baptism, but upon faith in Christ : " He 
that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness 
in himself." He is not left in doubt of his acceptance 
until after he is baptized, but the moment he exer- 
cises faith in the Son of God, he has the witness in 
himself that he is a child of God. "VVe adduce one 
more text to show that the evidence of our adoption 
does not come to us through the Word, or an out- 
ward rite, but is by the direct operation of the Holy 
Spirit upon the heart : '• For as much as ye are 
manifestly declared to be the Epistles of Christ 
ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the 
Spirit of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but 
in fleshly tables of the heart." (II. Cor. iii, 3.) 



THE SPIRIT OR THE WORD WHICH ? 155 

That the Spirit is promised to believers as an 
abiding presence is obvious from numerous declara- 
tions of the Word. The Saviour told his disciples on 
that last fatal night that it was expedient for him to 
go away, but that he would not leave them comfort- 
less. He said : " I will pray the Father and he shall 
give you another Comforter that he may abide with 
you forever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world 
can not receive, because it seeth him not neither 
knoweth him, but ye know him, for he dwelleth 
with you and shall be in you. " (Jno. xvi, 16-17.) 
Christ had been with his followers in person, and had 
taught them, aided them, and comforted them in 
their sorrows. And he tells them that when he goes 
away he will send them, another Comforter to take 
his place, who shall dwell with them and be in them 
always. This was something that the world could 
neither receive nor know. But the world can re- 
ceive and have a knowledge of the word of truth, 
therefore, it could not have been the Word that was 
promised them. 

The word ghost is derived from a word that means 
inmate, inhabitant, guest, and our translators could 
not have chosen a better term to express this office 
of the Holy Spirit. The Christian is called in the 
Scriptures the temple of God : " Know ye not that 
ye are the temple of God, and the spirit of God 
dwelleth in you. " ( I. Cor. iii, 16.) Again it is said : 



156 CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED, 

" But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit if so 
be the Spirit of Christ dwelleth in you. " (Rom. viii,ll.) 
The plain and unmistakable meaning of these texts 
is that the Holy Spirit is the resident tenant of the 
soul of every disciple of Christ. And they clearly 
teach that only those who have the Spirit dvrelling 
in them are true disciples of the Lord. 

And this indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit is 
made the test by which w^e can know whether we 
are accepted of God or not : " Examine yourselves, 
whether ye be in the faith ; prove your own selves. 
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ 
is in you, except ye be reprobates? (II. Cor. xiii, 5.) 
There is no possibility of explaining the meaning of 
such passages as these if there is no distinction be- 
tween the Word and the Spirit. The promises of 
Christ are, by this doctrine, made meaningless, and 
the church is left comfortless. But it can not be that 
these promises are without meaning, and that the 
true followers of Christ are left without any certain 
knowledge of their acceptance with God. The Holy 
Spirit and the word of truth are not the same, but 
the Spirit itself convicts the sinner of his guilt, bears 
witness to his adoption into the family of God, and 
dwells continually in the heart of the saint. 



HISTOEICAL FAITH. 157 



CHAPTEK XI. 

HISTORICAL FAITH. 

*' Here I am led to expaciate on a very popular and pernicious 
error of modern times. That error is, that the nature or power 
and saving efficacy of faith is not in the Irulh believed, but in 
the nature of our faith, or in the manner of believing the truth. 
Hence all that unmeaning jargon about the nature of faith, and 
all those disdainful sneers at what is called ' historic faith ' — as 
if there could be any faith without history, written or spoken. 
Let It be again repeated and remembered that there is no other 
manner of believing a fact than as receiving it as true. If it is not 
received as true, it is not believed ; and, when it is believed, it 
is no more than regarded as true. This being conceded, then it 
follows that the efficacy of faith is always in the fact believed or 
the object received, and not in the nature or manner of believing." 

— ChriBtian System, p. 114. 

According to this doctrinal scheme, man is not so 
fallen or depraved as to require any divine assistance 
to enable him to believe the truths of the gospel. 
He simply weighs the evidence in the balance of 
reason, and if he regards the testimony as sufficient 
to substantiate these truths, he accepts them, if not he 
rejects them. "When he receives the fact as true, for 
example, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, he has 
faith. But it admits of no higher degree of faith, 
than the mere assent of the mind to an historical fact. 
And this intellectual assent to the truth of the gos- 
pel facts, which is properly called " historic faith," 



158 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

is not faith at all, in the strictest sense of the word. 
Faith is more than the belief of testimony, or receiv- 
ing a fact as true. The belief of the testimony pre- 
cedes faith, but it is not the faith-that explicit trust 
in Christ, which the sinner must exercise in order to 
obtain salvation. In ordei* to be consistent, the 
founder of this system was compelled to place faith 
in the plan of salvation before repentance, contrary 
to the Scripture formula, because the belief of the 
fact necessaril}^ precedes, but never follows repent- 
ance. The fact that it was necessary to adapt the 
gospel teachings to suit this theory is sufficient of it- 
self to disprove it. 

Mr. Campbell attempts to prove that faith is the 
belief of the fact, by such arguments as the follow- 
ing: "If, on surveying with the eye a beautiful 
landscape, I am pleased, and on surveying a battle- 
field strewed with the spoils of death, I am pained, — 
is it in accordance witli truth to say, that the pleas- 
ure or the pain received was occasioned by the na- 
ture of vision, or the mode of seeing? "Was it not 
the sight, the thing seen, the object of vision, which 
produced the pleasure and the pain ? The action of 
looking, or the mode of seeing, was in both cases the 
same ; but the things seen, or the objects of vision, 
were different; consequently the effects produced 
were different. If on hearmg the melodj^ of the 
grove I am delighted, and on hearing the peals of 



HISTORICAL FAITH. 159 

thunder breaking in pieces the cloud, dark with 
horror, hanging over my head, I am terrified, — is 
the delight or the terror to be ascribed to the manner 
or nature of hearing or to the thing heard ? Is it 
not the thing heard which produces the delight or 
the terror ? May we not, then, affirm that all the 
pleasures and pains of sense — all the effects of sen- 
sation — are the result, not of the manner in which 
our five senses are exercised, but of the objects on 
which they are exercised ? " * 

This argument is unsound because it is not founded 
in fact. The facts are such as to sustain the opposite 
conclusion. Every one sees things from the stand- 
point of his previously acquired group of ideas; 
strictly speaking, no two persons can see the same 
thing just alike ; because it can never happen that 
two individuals have precisely the same group of 
ideas relating to any subject. These ideas depend 
on past experience, education, interests, beliefs and 
desires. Suppose that several persons stand side by 
side looking upon a beautiful landscape. What they 
perceive is the same, but what they apperceive is 
entirely different. The artist has spread out before 
him a picture, with light and shade and harmony of 
color. To the farmer there appears a farm, with 
fields of grain, meadows, and pasture land. The 
sportsman apperceives it as a place in which he 

* Christian System, p. 115. 



160 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

might enjoy a day's sport in hunting the game that 
may be found upon it. And the pleasure that they 
feel as they gaze on the landscape is not from the 
thing seen, but from the manner in which they see. 
That it is not the thing seen which causes the 
pleasure or pain that a person feels when looking at 
an object is manifest. A young man who had been 
raised on a farm came with his father to see the 
Niagara Falls. And after gazing for a while upon 
this sublime sight, he said : " Oh, father, what a 
nice place to wash sheep." This sounds so ludicrous 
that it seems almost impossible that any one could 
say such a thing after seeing this grand work of 
nature. How great the contrast between the ex- 
clamation of this young man, and that of the immortal 
Bascom when he first saw Magara. Bascom was 
for a time so overwhelmed by the magnificent view, 
that he stood transfixed to the spot unable to utter 
a word, then lifting his hands towards heaven he ex- 
claimed, in a voice filled with rapture : " God of 
grandeur, what a scene!" If it is the object on 
which our sense of sight is exercised, and not 
the manner of seeing, how can the different effect 
that it produced in these individuals be accounted 
for; the mode of seeing was the same, but 
the effects produced were entirely different. 
This can not be accounted for on any such 
a theory, but if it is the manner of seeing that pro- 



HISTORICAL FAITH. 161 

duces the effect, then, the explanation is easy. The 
3^oung farmer looked upon the I^Tiagara Falls with the 
group of ideas he had acquired by his past experience 
on the farm ; therefore he saw in the falling water 
something that would greatly lighten the labor 6f 
washing sheep, and his exclamation was natural and 
in harmony with the mode of his seeing. Dr. Bas- 
com by education and religious training possessed a 
wholly different group of ideas, and consequently 
was capable of appreciating this sublime sight. But 
if it is the object seen that produces the effect, both 
of these men looking at the same object ought to 
have seen it exactly alike ; and that they did not 
proves that it is not the thing seen, but the manner 
of seeing which produces the effect. It is true that 
a person may be pamed on surveying a battle field 
strewn with the slain, but it is the manner of looking 
that causes the pain. The sight of the dead in the 
first battle may produce a lasting impression on the 
mind, but when a person becomes familiar with such 
scenes, they have-Scarcely any effect upon him. And 
the sight of the dead bodies of the enemy, on ac- 
count of the hatred one has for them, instead of pro- 
ducing pain, may cause rejoicing. 

And it is not the thing heard that gives us pleas- 
ure or causes us pain, but the manner in which we 
hear; for example, two men went to hear a celebrated 
violinist play. And after listening to him play for 



162 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

gome time, one of them said : "I do wish he wonld 
get through tuning his instrument, I would like to 
hear him play a piece. " The other one said : " Plush 
that is the finest piece of music I ever heard in my 
life. " These persons did not hear alike, but why 
was it they did not ? It was because the one had a 
cultivated ear and could appreciate fine music, while 
the other did not have a trained ear and could not 
tell, even, that the musician was playing a tune. 
After long and patient training the ear is brought 
to recognize the harmony of sounds. And, when 
that stage is once reached, every tuneful chord 
causes an answering thrill of joy in the soul, and 
every discord a quiver of pain. But unless a person 
has a cultivated ear, or has an ear for music natur- 
ally, he can have no appreciation of harmony. It 
was the manner in which these men heard that de. 
lighted the one and made the other tired. A man 
may hear the " melody of the grove, " yet not derive 
any pleasure from it, but on the contrary it may an- 
noy him. And a person who is superstitious or cow- 
ardly may feel terror at the sound of thunder, while 
another person may feel no sense of fear, whatever, 
he may be delighted by it, when he thinks of the rain 
that will come with it to refreshen the earth. And 
what is true of the senses of seeing and hearing is 
true of all of them. Hence all the pleasures and 
pains of sense are the result, not of the objects on 



HISTORICAL FAITH. 163 

which they are exercised, but in the manner of 
which our five senses are exercised. Therefore all 
the arguments that are drawn from the exercise 
of the senses in support of the belief of the fact, 
fall to the ground. For, instead of sustaining this 
theory, they prove that the efficacy of faith is al- 
ways in the manner of believing, and not in the fact 
believed. 

That it is the manner in which we receive a fact, 
and n>t the fact believed that produces the various 
sensations of pleasure or pain, joy or sorrow within 
us, can be clearly demonstrated. A single illustra- 
tion will be sufficient to establish this fact. When 
the news of the massacre of the FrenchHuguenots,on 
St. B irtholomew'sday, came to the several courts of 
Europe, it excited very different emotions. It is said 
that Philip of Spain laughed for the first time in all 
of his life, while Emperor Ma.ximillian wept over the 
atrocious crime. Queen Elizabeth received with 
silence the French Ambassador, in a hall draped with 
funeral black, and the discomfitted nobleman had to 
depart without permission to offer his explanation. 
The Pope ordered the Te Deum sung, and celebrated 
the event as a great Roman victory. It was not the 
fact that thousands of these Christians were massa- 
cred, that caused these persons to laugh and weep, 
mourn and rejoice, but the manner in which they re- 
garded the fact. Those who were at all humane 



164 CAilPBELLISM EETEALED. 

were made sad, but those who hated these people 
rejoiced. If it had been the event itself, not the 
manner in which it was viewed, that affected these 
persons, they would all have felt the same in re- 
gard to it ; but as the slaughter of these people pro- 
duced such different emotions in them, it must have 
been the stand-point from which they looked at the 
event which delighted some and pained others. And 
this is equally true in regard to faith ; it is not the 
fact believed that saves; but the nature of the faith, 
or the manner of believing the fact. 

*The mind runs in the three channels of faith, doubt 
and unbelief. The unbeliever, of course, has no 
faith, and the one w^ho doubts a fact does not be- 
lieve it, therefore he can not have faith. [N'ow, if 
faith is simply thebelief of the fact that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God, it is impossible for there to be any 
degrees in faith. For if a person' really beh eves a 
fact, he believes it as fully as any other person. 
Hence there can not be, according to this system^ any 
distinction in the nature, or degree of faith. But 
the Scriptures speak of "little faith " and "great 
faith," of ^' w^eak faith" and '' strong faith, " and 
such expressions must refer to the nature and degree 
of faith. There is no difference between this so- 
called faith than that exercised by devils, for they 
" believe also and tremble. " A-nd a whole legion of 
them came to Jesus in the countrv of the Gadarenes 



HISTOETCAL FAITH. 165 

and confessed him to be the " Son of God most high." 
And they were then immersed by the herd of swine, 
and as they had beheved, confessed, and been im- 
mersed they must have been saved. Surely there is 
more faith required of the person seeking salvation 
than that possessed by devils. 

The language of the Ethiopian eunuch is all the 
proof there is to support the theory, that the 
belief of the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God, is faith. Philip replied to his request for 
baptism : "If thou believest with all thine heart thou 
mayest." And if he believed with all his heart, 
he was already saved, for "with the heart man be- 
lieveth unto righteousness." And be said : "I be- 
lieve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." But 
what did it mean for him to make this confession ? 
It meant the bitterest persecution, and perhaps death. 
He who became a disciple of Christ at this time 
placed his life in jeopardy every day. And no one 
would make such a confession as this, unless he had 
fully embraced Christ as his personal Saviour. At 
that day, there could have been no stronger proof 
of the genuineness of a person's conversion than 
this statement, but we have no evidence that any 
other person ever used this formula to declare his 
faith. Christianity is no longer regarded with 
contempt; but at the present time it is popular. 
For a person to stand before a congregation to-day, 



166 CAMPBELLISM EEYEALED. 

and say : ^'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God,'- is meaningless. It is an empty form giving 
no evidence, whatever of saving faith in Christ. 
In fact, there are thousands of godless men who 
believe this fact as firmly as any one that now makes 
this "noble confession," yet they do not have faith. 
If the belief of the fact that Jesus is the Christ is 
faith, there is no difference between the faith of 
the impenitent sinner and that of the most de- 
vout saint. But it was necessary to call this in- 
tellectual assent to the truth faith, in order to make 
immersion the "crowning act of man's restoration to 
God's favor." 

But belief and faith are not identical. A man 
believes many things in which he has no faith. And 
if a sufficient number of competent witnesses all 
testify to the truth of a certain fact, he can not 
well disbelieve it. The evidence that Jesus Christ 
is the Son of God is so abundant that a reasonable 
person can not well disbelieve it as a fact ; yet he 
can deny, reject, and disbelieve in him as a personal 
Saviour. There is nc saving efficacy in the belief of 
this fact of itself, but this is all the faith that 
Campbellism requires. The saving efficac^^ of faith 
is in its nature, or the manner of believing, and 
not in the fact believed alone. We may believe with 
all our heart, or we may only give intellectual assent 
to the truth. And right here is where the great 



HISTORICAL FAITH. 16? 

difficulty arises. There can be historical faith with- 
out heart faith, but there can not be heart faith 
without historical faith. The individual may give 
the assent of his mind to the fact that Christ is the 
Saviour of the world, but he can only appropriate 
it to his salvation by the manner of his believing, or 
by explicit trust in him for salvation. It all depends 
on the nature of this faith, for "with the heart " — 
not the intellect " — man believeth unto righteous- 
ness." Saving faith is more than the belief of 
testimony or regarding a fact as true. Faith is 
made up of these three ingredients — knowledge, 
belief and trust. A measure of knowledge of the 
great central truths of the gospel is essential to 
faith. And there must necessarily be a belief that 
these things are true, but an explicit trust in these 
truths is needed to complete the faith. Trust is the 
main ingredient — the very life-blood — of faith. 
There can be no saving faith without it. And it is 
not a pernicious error, but the gospel truth, that the 
saving efficacy of faith is not alone in the truth be- 
lieved, but in the nature of the faith. And all the un- 
meaning jargon comes from the other side, for 
historical faith has not a single prop upon which to 
stand. 



168 CAMPBELLISM KEVEALED. 



CHAPTER XII. 

SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY, 
' ' We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit 
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith and not for our 
own works, or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by 
faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of com- 
fort." 

— Methodist Discipline. 

The doctrine which is set forth in this article of 
religion, that " faith only " is the one necessary or 
crowning condition to the salvation of the penitent 
sinner, has met with the most bitter opposition from 
the advocates of Campbellism. And it is not at all 
strange, that they have antagonized the teachings 
of this article of faith ; for it is diametrically opposed 
to the central idea of their doctrinal system — salva- 
tion by water. The method they usually employ in 
controverting the doctrine of justification by faith 
is to sever the last part of the article from its con- 
nections, and, then, insist that the Methodists teach 
that the sinner is justified without grace, without 
the blood of Christ, without works, without the 
Word, and without obedience. In fact, that the 
forgiveness of sins is held to be by faith alone, with- 
out any other cause or agency, whatever. This is a 
gross misrepresentation and a willful perversion of 
the plain declarations of this article. The first part 



SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY. 169 

of the article clearly defines what is meant by the 
last part of it, and as a whole it sets forth the doc- 
trine of justification as taught in the Word of God- 
" We are accounted righteous before God only for 
the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by 
faith and not for our own works, or deservings." It 
must be plain to any unbiased mind that ''faith" 
here is in direct antithesis with " our own works, or 
deservings." Hence it is " not by works of righteous- 
ness which we have done," that we are justified, or 
"accounted righteous before God," but "for the 
merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," by the 
exercise of " faith only " on our part. 

This article of faith was not framed to set forth 
what God by his grace has done, or what Christ has 
suffered to make salvation possible to fallen man, 
but simply states that we are justified by faith in 
Christ, and not by our own works. It was not 
framed, even, to show what the impenitent sinner 
must do in order to obtain the pardon of his sins. 
It says that "we," that is, penitent sinners, "are 
accounted righteous, on account of the merits of 
Christ, through the exercise of faith, and not for our 
own deservings." Christ is the object of the faith ; 
it is for his merits ; and faith only is required of the 
sinner to appropriate these merits to his own justifi- 
cation. 
We readily admit that there are other causes of 



170 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

justification besides faith. There are. three distinct 
and separate causes, commonly called the originat- 
ing cause, the procuring cause, and the instrumental, 
or receiving cause. Grace is the first, the blood of 
Christ is the second, and faith is the third. Man trans- 
gressed God's law, fell from his high estate, and was 
ruined by tbe fall. And the whole scheme of his 
redemption and salvation was brought about by the 
unmerited favor of God. Grace devised the plan 
of redemption, provided the ransom, and made salva- 
tion possible to sinful and disobedient man. " By 
grace are ye saved. " The law had been broken, 
and the penalty must be enforced. And how we were 
ransomed is shown by the Scripture : " But God com- 
raendeth his love toward us that while we were yet 
sinners Christ died for us. Much more than being 
justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath 
through him. " How the merits of Christ are appro- 
priated, received, by the sinner is clearly set forth in 
Romans v, 1 : '' Therefore being justified by faith 
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ." It does not say that it is by "an act re- 
sulting from faith," but simply by faith. In Romans 
iii, 23-26, these three causes are clearly set forth: " For 
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 
being justified freely by his grace through the re- 
demption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God had set 
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, 



SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY. 171 

to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins 
that our past, through the forbearance of God; to 
declare, I say, at this time his righteousness : that he 
might be just, and the justifier of him which be- 
lieveth in Jesus. " Justification is here attributed to 
grace, the blood of Christ, and faith, but not one 
word is said of "an act of faith," or a " believing 
immersion. " And this passage should settle the 
question forever as to what the causes of justification 
are. In order that he may throw discredit upon the 
evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, Mr. 
Campbell says : " In examining the ISTew Testament, 
we find that a man is said to be ' Justified by faith, ' 
Rom. V, 1 : Gal. ii, 16, iii, 24. 'Justified freely by 
his grace,' Rora. iii, 24 ; Titus iii, T. ' Justified by 
his blood, ' Rom. v, 9. Justified by works,' James ii, 
21, 24, 25. ' Justified in or by the name of the Lord 
Jesus ; I. Cor, vi, 11. 'Justified by Christ,' Gal. ii, 
1 6. ' Justified by knowledge, ' Isa. liii, 2. ' It is God 
that justifies,' Rom. iii, 33, viz. : by these seven 
means, — by Christ, his name, hisblood, by knowledge, 
grace, faith, and works. Are these all literal ? Is there 
no room for interpretation here ? He that selects 
faith out of seven must either act arbitrarily or 
show his reason ; but the reason does not appear in 
the text. " * Any one that is not hopelessl}?" blind 
or willfully ignorant must see that four of these 

* Christian System, p. 247. 



1T2 CAMPBELLISM EEVEALED. 

so-called causes are but one and the same cause 
stated in different language. By Christ, his name, his 
blood, and his knowledge, when properly stated, are 
by " the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. " 
And this only leaves faith, grace, and works as pos- 
sible causes of justification. The first two are 
affirmed and the last one positively set aside by St. 
Paul, he says : " By grace are ye saved through 
faith ; and that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of 
God ; not of works lest any man should boast. " 
(Eph. ii, 8-9.) It is under the head of works that 
immersion is claimed to be the " immediate cause '^ 
of justification ; therefore it is set aside by this text 
as having nothing whatever to do with the salvation 
of the sinner. If it is the act by which he turns to 
God, he certainly has something whereof to boast. 

It is true that this term " only " is exclusive, but 
it does not exclude the grace of God. On the con- 
trary it recognizes it as the sole originating cause of 
justification. It receives and appropriates the grace 
of God. " It is of faith that it might be by grace. " 
It does not exclude the blood of Christ, for justify- 
ing faith takes hold of the blood as the meritorius 
grounds of salvation. It does not exclude God's 
"Word, but heeds it, and is directed by it. It does 
not exclude obedience, but begets obedience. The 
faith that is the only receiving cause of justification 
is not alone, for it has other accompaniments. But 



SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY. 173 

it is only the faith, and not its accompaniments, 
which enables the sinner to appropriate the merits 
of Christ, and thus reunite his soul with God. Grace 
is the sole originating cause of justification, and in 
this sense it is by grace only. The blood of Christ 
is its sole procuring cause, and in this sense it is by 
the blood only. Ani faith alone is the receiving 
cause of justification ; it is the instrumental means by 
which the sinner reaches out and appropriates the 
merits of Christ ; and in this sense it is by faith only 
that he is justified. And by ''faith only" is meant 
that without which no sinner can be saved, no 
matter what else may be done by him, or what else 
may have been done for him. 

To talk of seven distinct causes of justification only 
tends to confuse the minds of the people. We do 
not deny that there are means which are helpful to 
the sinner in obtaining the forgiveness of his sins. 
But the advocates of salvation by water persist in 
confounding these means with the cause, or neces- 
sary condition, of pardon. Everything that aids the 
sinner m the obtainment of forgiveness is a means 
to that end. But these means have no saving effi- 
cacy, and are not conditions on which pardon is 
granted. God requires faith only as the condition 
of pardon for sins. But the sinner has become so 
alienated from God, that he can not comply with 
this requirement until he repents of his sins. Though 



174 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

he may have the most godlv sorrow for his sins, and 
weep tears of bitterness ; yet these wil^ not obtain 
his pardon. He may pray with the greatest earnest- 
ness, for the humble penitent always prays, but this 
will not save him. Repentance and prayer necessarily 
go before forgiveness,but they are not necessary to par- 
don, that is, they do not form a part of the condition 
on which God remits sins. They only bring the sinner 
into that frame of mind which enables him to exercise 
that trust in, and reliance upon the merits of Christ, 
which is necessary for the remission of sins. Hear- 
ing the word, repentance, and prayer all precede jus- 
tification, but only prepare the way for the exercise 
of faith, which is the only necessary condition of 
forgiveness. And if there is any inconsistency in 
teaching that salvation is by faith onh'-, notwith- 
standing it has other accompaniments, then, Mr. 
Campbell himself was a very inconsistent man, for 
he published to the world that " immersion alone 
was the act of turning to God ; " and yet claimed 
that faith and reformation must precede this act. 

The question under discussion, however, is not 
what are the causes of, or the means that load to, the 
sinner's salvation, but this: what is the conditional 
cause? This, we contend is faith only. The one 
thing that the penitent sinner must do is to " believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ," and he shall be saved. 
The followers of Campbell hold that salvation is not 



SALTATION BY FAITH ONLY. 175 

by faith only, but by " an act resulting from faith," 
that is, by "a believing immersion, " which they term 
the "immediate cause" of justification. And in 
order to make their theory appear plausible,they quote 
James ii. 21-24 : " Was not Abraham our father 
justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son 
upon the altar ? Seest thou how faith wrought with 
his works, and by works was faith made per- 
fect ? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, 
Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him 
for righteousness : and he was called the friend of 
God. Ye see then how that by works a man is 
justified, and not by faith only." The term justifi- 
cation is used in the Scriptures in several different 
senses. It is employed to denote the justification of 
the sinner, in the sense of pardon and personal ac- 
ceptance. This is the justification which Paul speaks 
of in Acts xiii. 88,39: "Be it known unto 3^ou 
therefore, men and brethren, that through this man 
is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins : and by 
him all that believe are justified from all things, from 
which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.'' 
And he refers to it again, in Gal. ii, IG : "Knowing 
that a man is not justified by the works of the law, 
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have be- 
lieved in Jesus Christ, that we might be justi- 
fied by the faith of Christ, and not by the works 
of the law ; for by the works of the law" shall no fiesh 



1Y6 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

be justified." But there is another justification^ that 
of the righteous in the sense of approval. 'And it 
was in this sense that Abraham was justified, when 
he had offered Isaac upon the altar. The former is 
by faith only, but the latter is by works of piety and 
charity, which are the outgrowth of a living faith. 

These two apostles do not contradict each other. 
James was writing to professed Christians whoseemed 
to think that a mere intellectual faith would save 
them, while they neglected the plainest duties of 
the Christian religion. Such dead, inoperative faith 
could not save them. And he tells them that they 
must have a living faith that manifests itself in 
works of charity and piety. He then gives the case 
of Abraham as an example of living faith, showing 
them that the faith that had justified him at the 
time he had believed the promise of God in regard 
to the birth of Isaac was not dead, but was alive and 
active at the time he offered his son upon the altar. 
Paul addresses the unbelieving Jews who sought to 
justify themselves by the works of the law^ And 
he declares that no man can be justified, in the sense 
of pardoned, by the deeds of the law. We see, then, 
that the Christian is justified — approved — by works, 
and not by faith only. And that the sinner is 
justified — pardoned — by "faith only," and not by 
his own " works or deservings." 

In the fourth chapter of Komans the question of 



SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY. 177 

Abraham's justification as a sinner is fully treated : 
^' For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath 
whereof to glory ; but not before God. For what 
saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it 
was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to 
him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of 
grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, 
but belie vet h on him that justifieth the ungodly, 
his faith is counted for righteousness. . . How was it 
then reckoned ? When he was in circumcision, or in 
uncircumcision ? E'ot in circumcision, but in uncir- 
cumcision. . . Who against hope believed in hope, 
that he might become the father of many nations, 
according to that which was spoken, so shall thy 
seed be. And being not weak in the faith, is con- 
sidered not his own body now dead, when he was 
about a hundred years old, neither yet the deadness 
of Sarah's womb : he staggered not at the promises 
of God through unbelief ; but was strong in faith, 
giving glory to God ; and being fully persuaded 
that, what he had promised, he was able also to per- 
form. And therefore it was imputed to him for 
righteousness." If the testimony of the apostle can 
be credited, it is manifest that the father of the 
faithful was justified — pardoned — before Isaac was 
born, and at the time he believed the promise relative 
to his birth. This took place over twenty years 
before the justification that James speaks of, when 



1?^ CAMPBELLISM EEVEALEB. 

he offered his son upon the altar. And this fact for 
ever excludes the idea that the sinner is justified by 
works. The sinner is justified by faith alone, and 
the righteous man by faith and works. 

That salvation is by faith only, and not by water, 
can be easily proven by an appeal to the teachings 
of Christ and the apostles. When Jesus began to 
preach his gospel he said : " The time is fulfilled and 
the kingdom of God is at hand : repent and believe 
the gospel." (Mk. i, 15.) He said nothing about a 
" believing immersion " being necessary in order to 
enter the kingdom of God. Kepentance and faith 
are all the requirements he mentions. Again he 
says : "As Moses lifted up the serpent m the wilder- 
ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up : 
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, 
but have eternal life. For God so loved the world 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life." (Jno. iii, 14-16.) He did not say he was 
lifted up that whosoever should perform an " act of 
faith " should have eternal life. He did not say 
that God gave his Son, that whosoever performed 
an " act resulting from faith " in him should have 
everlasting life. But simply "whosoever believeth 
in him " — not whosoever performeth an act result- 
ing from belief — " should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life." In John vi, 47, Christ says : " Verily, 



SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY. 179 

verily I say unto you he that believeth on me hath 
eternal life." Here the possession of eternal life is 
predicated upon faith, and not upon a "believing 
immersion," He affirms a direct and immediate 
connection between the exercise of faith in himself, 
and the possession of eternal life. The moment a 
person believes in him he has this life, and not after 
he has performed an act resulting from his faith. 

The Saviour forgave sins while he was here on 
earth in exact harmony with his teachings, by faith 
only, and not by a " believing immersion." The first 
example we have of his forgiving sins was the case 
of the paralytic, who was let down into his presence 
b}^ some of the sick man's friends. *' When Jesus saw 
their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy. Son, 
thy sins be forgiven thee." His sins were forgiven 
simply upon the exercise of faith. Nothing more 
was required, but seeing their faith, he said, " thy 
sins be forgiven thee." The next instance of Christ 
forgiving sins was that of the sinning woman. She 
came weeping and trembling, and falling at his feet 
humbly sued for pardon. "And he said unto her, thy 
sins are forgiven thee. . Thy faith hath saved thee." 
He did not say to her, " Your faith is all right, and 
your repentance and confession are genuine, but you 
must be baptized for the remission of j^our sins." 
Did he say to his disciples ; " This woman has heard 
my Word, believed that I am the Son of God, and 



180 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

has made a noble confession ; take her, therefore, and 
wash away her sins in baptism ? "Did he say to her 
on their return, '' Thy believing immersion hath saved 
thee ? " No, we hear nothing of the kind, though there 
was nothing to hinder her from being baptized. He 
told her that her sins were forgiven, and that it was 
her faith that had saved her. The penitent thief was 
saved while on the cross, yet he was not baptized. 
And unless Christ sent out unconverted men to preach 
his gospel, which is not reasonable, there were, at 
least, eighty -five persons, who had their sins pardoned 
by faith alone. And if water baptism was not 
necessary for the remission of their sins, it is not 
^'necessary for the remission of anybody's sins. The 
only way to escape this conclusion is to deny that 
the condition of pardon that Christ preached and 
required during his personal ministry was not the 
same that was preached and'required by the apostles 
after his ascension. But the apostles laid down the 
same condition for the forgiveness of sins, and pro- 
claimed the same gospel that their Master did. 
Peter says : " To him give all the prophets witness, 
that through his name whosoever believeth in him 
shall receive remission of sins." (Acts x. 43.) 
Paul declares, when asked by the jailer what to do 
to be saved : "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
thou shall be saved, and thy house." ( Acts xvi, 31.) 
Johr'*'^aches us that we are born of God by faith 



SALVATION BY FAITH ONLY. 181 

itself, and not by "an act resulting from faith:" 
" "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
born of God " ( I. John v, 1. ) They undoubtedly 
preached and required the condition of pardon in 
their ministry that the Saviour did in his ; therefore 
^*faith only " is the one necessary requisite to salva- 
tion from sin. 

The central idea of Campbellism is immersion 
for the remission of sins. Its advocates never 
preach a sermon touching the forgiveness of 
sins, that they do not teach that water baptism is 
the very essence of the gospel, without which no one 
can possibly be saved. But there is a marked con- 
trast between the sermons of these teachers, and 
those of Christ and his apostles. There is not a 
single word said by them about water baptism being 
the " act of turning to God, " but they always and 
every where declare that salvation is by faith. If 
water baptism "is the crowning act of man's restora- 
tion to God's favor " it is inconceivable that the 
Lord and his disciples should neglect to mention the 
fact, that this was the one essential condition 
in the plan of salvation. The condition on which 
the salvation of the soul hinges is of too vast im- 
portance to be left in such obscurity, yet this is the 
case, if baptism is for the remission of sins. But the 
true condition on which sins are remitted is not in 
volved in uncertainty ; for it is so frequently men- 



182 CAMPBELLISM REVEALED. 

tioned and so often repeated in the Scriptures that 
there can be no doubt as to what it is. Again, and 
again, salvation is said to be "by faith, " "of faith " 
and "through faith, " but never by " an act resulting 
from faith. " Faith is referred to over three hun- 
dred times in the Bible as being conditional to 
the pardon of sins, but water baptism is never men- 
tioned in this connection. It is impossible that 
these two systems — Campbellism, in which water is 
so conspicuous, and " the gospel of Christ, " in which 
it is only conspicuous for its absence — can be one and 
the same, for they are diametrically opposed to each 
other. One of them is false, for both can not be 
true. Which, then, shall we believe, the teaching 
of Alexander Campbell and his followers or that of 
Jesus Christ and his inspired apostles ? 



THE END. 




-■AT^.Ty-anfr ^ 



^•'X^f^^i* *c^^$Y:^4iy.« *^M^t:-!^ #^X^#'* 












«-*> 















fl^gi^rtl; 



^•^•rv^ 



